Research Theory, Design, & Methods

2 Philosophical Foundations and the Role of Theory in Research

Gary J. Burkholder and Patricia M. Burbank Introduction Science comprises a body of knowledge originating from systematic observation. The term tradixtional science is sometimes used to describe the scientific method that first evolved to explain physical phenomena and has been broadly applied by social scientists through primarily quantitative approaches to explain human behavior. The traditional science method typically involves the generation or utilization of theory to explain phenomena in the natural world. Theories are then tested using careful methods of observation, data collection, and analysis. History shows that there is an important role for the merging of philosophy, the understanding of the fundamental nature of reality and the processes involved in trying to find the answers to questions regarding its nature (Buckingham & Burnham, 2015), and science. A philosophy of science addresses fundamental questions about the nature of truth and the underlying assumptions of theories used to describe natural phenomena. In particular, philosophers of social science are interested in a number of implications of this intersection of science and philosophy because what happens when chemicals in a laboratory interact appears to be fundamentally different from how humans interact. The differences and similarities between the physical and social sciences have been an ongoing debate among philosophers of science. One school in the philosophy of science believes that the social and natural sciences are essentially the same and that their methods should closely correspond. They believe that social phenomena can be reduced to physical entities, which can be directly observed and are governed by physical laws. This reflects a reductionist view of science held by philosophers such as Karl Popper, Thomas Nagel, and Richard Dawkins. Others, such as Max Weber and Jurgen Habermas, held the view that the social and natural sciences are inherently different and that explanations of social phenomena are based on interpretivist perspectives grounded in experience and meaning. This range of views affects different decisions regarding how to answer social science research questions. For example, if you believe that social sciences are similar to natural sciences, then traditional science methods using primarily quantitative approaches are appropriate. On the other hand, if you believe that social sciences are inherently different from natural sciences and that knowledge about human beings can advance only through the discovery of meaning, then the traditional science methods will not work to uncover these meanings. Some refer to nontraditional science approaches that include interpretive and hermeneutic methods to explain and understand phenomena. Both approaches are valuable in generating a full range of knowledge in the social sciences, yet the differences raise a number of important questions, including those involving (a) what we can know in the natural sciences versus what we can know in the social sciences; (b) whether there can be laws that govern human behavior, much like the laws that govern physical phenomena; and (c) the nature of causality. It is these questions that this chapter will begin to address. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a brief introduction to the terminology and concepts associated with the philosophy of science that are most directly applicable to your research. From a purely practical standpoint, it might seem that philosophy does not have anything to do with conducting research. For example, you could imagine conducting a study, collecting and analyzing data, and reporting on those data without considering the philosophical or theoretical aspects of the underlying science. However, as will become clearer in this chapter, your choices of theory, research approaches, and research designs come with sets of assumptions about the nature of truth. More practically for you as a researcher, there needs to be a logical connection between philosophy, theory, approaches, and designs, or what we frequently refer to as alignment in this text. Miller and Burbank (1994) wrote, Philosophy, theory, and method are interrelated and fit together like pieces in a puzzle. … One’s philosophical perspectives affect the way one chooses a theoretical perspective. Similarly, the underlying assumptions on which theories are based may limit the research methods. (p. 704) Our focus in this chapter is the congruence between philosophy, theory, and method; why this congruence is important; and strategies to achieve it. We begin with a review of two concepts in philosophy, ontology and epistemology. Next, we review the major philosophical perspectives, referred to in Chapter 1 as paradigms, found in social and health science research. Philosophical orientations refers to the constellation of assumptions about reality that guide the adoption of particular approaches to inquiry and methods. We will review philosophical perspectives including logical positivism, sometimes just called positivism; postpositivism; and constructivism. Next, we present the essentials of theory development to orient you to the role of theory in research. We conclude the chapter with key sources as well as reflection questions that should guide your thinking regarding the underlying assumptions and the role of theory in research. Ontology and Epistemology Ontology Ontology addresses the nature of reality and being (Ponterotto, 2005) and the underlying question of whether there is an objective, verifiable reality outside of the researcher, a position associated with realism, or whether reality is the result of individual interpretation or social construction, a position associated with relativism. Although there are many varieties of realism, realists believe that we perceive objects outside of ourselves whose existence and nature are independent of our perception of them. Realists believe that there is one truth, even though we may never be able to know it. Truth, in this sense, corresponds directly to facts that are observable and knowable (Kukla, 2000). Antirealism includes many different philosophical positions, such as pragmatism, idealism, rationalism, and relativism. Relativism will be considered here because it is an ontological position closely aligned with several nontraditional, interpretive methods, such as hermeneutic phenomenology. Relativism was described by Clark (1992) as knowledge that is always a representation of reality from a person’s particular perspective. Thus, there can be no objective point from which to evaluate the truth of our view outside of our own perspective of the social world. Knowledge is determined by contextual circumstances, including historical, subjective, cultural, or institutional (Kim, 1999). Epistemology and Ways of Knowing the World Knowledge. Knowledge is defined as belief that is justified based on facts assumed to be true by an observer. There are multiple ways by which knowledge can be generated. The first is through perception: We know things because we have experienced them with our senses. Experiential knowledge associated with sensory understanding is called empirical knowledge. We can also use either inductive or deductive logical and reasoned analysis. For example, professors and employers alike value critical thinking skills, but one does not need to be a scientist to invoke critical reasoning to solve problems. Many of us use the memory of situations to arrive at conclusions (knowledge) about what is happening at any given point in time. Introspection, reflection on the experience of our own mind, is yet another way of gaining knowledge, which may or may not involve inductive or deductive reasoning and logical thought. In testimonial knowledge, we rely on what a trusted other says is credible. Another way of knowing is through intuition. For example, people sometimes use hunches to come to understand their world, thereby reaching conclusions about the world that may be based partly or not at all in fact. Epistemology concerns knowledge. It is the study of knowledge and guides us to ask questions about what we can know and how we can know it, and the reliability of such knowledge (Johnson & Duberley, 2000); it also includes questions that explore the limits of knowledge. From the perspective of science, epistemology concerns what can be known using a scientific approach to understanding the natural world. For example, what can science and the scientific method reveal? Epistemological discussions also include whether the researcher can be a truly objective observer of reality or whether knowledge is really generated through dynamic interpretation of phenomena (Houghton, Hunter, & Meskell, 2012), a reflection of the connection between the “investigator and the investigated” (Mittwede, 2012, p. 26). Some have believed that the relationship between observer and observed could be regarded as completely objective, with the researcher viewing the object of research or the participant in an unbiased, value-free way. Thus, epistemology is concerned with the nature of scientific knowledge and the limits to which science can add new knowledge. We agree with Hanson (1958), who argued that observation is theory laden and unbiased observation is not possible because researchers are human beings with biases that cannot be completely overcome. This position is often called modified objectivity. Other researchers who use nontraditional or interpretive science approaches believe that the best and sometimes only way to generate knowledge about human beings is through a subjective relationship between the researcher and the participants, who cocreate knowledge. Thus, lack of objectivity is fundamental to the process of knowledge generation. Facts. Scientists discover and confirm facts. “The sun shines” is a fact because it is directly observable and can be verified by multiple bystanders. However, facts are not necessarily stationary; tomorrow, the fact may be that the sun is not shining because you cannot see the sun and it is raining (although it is a fact that the sun still exists behind the clouds!). Facts also result from immutable laws of nature. For example, sodium and chloride can be combined in predetermined proportions to make salt; we accept this as fact because this experiment when repeated multiple times and in multiple contexts achieves the same result. Facts can change based on new knowledge and new understanding. For many years, scientists believed that gastric ulcers were caused by stress and excess stomach acid. Although Warren and Marshall’s (1983) work identified a bacterium as the cause of gastric ulcers, the medical community did not accept these findings for many years. Continued scientific research and discovery ultimately provided undisputable facts that led to a shared understanding of a bacterial cause for ulcers. The two scientists were awarded the Nobel Prize in 2005 for their important work. Their work demonstrates that fact evolves through debate and verification. Summary Ontology concerns the nature of reality and the perception of what is truth. Epistemology in the philosophy of science refers to scientific knowledge and what constitutes scientific knowledge, how knowledge is generated from the practice of the scientific method, and the nature of the relationship between the researcher and what is being researched. When we are using the scientific method, we base what we know (or what we have come to know) on facts that are observable and verifiable by others. We systematically observe a phenomenon, assemble the facts, and use critical reasoning to arrive at understanding (knowledge) of the phenomenon. For researchers, ontological and epistemological considerations are crucial for understanding the nature of truth and reality as well as how knowledge is generated. How you understand ontology and epistemology orients you toward certain approaches to research; this will become clearer in the discussion of paradigms/philosophical orientations. Philosophical Orientations/Paradigms Your specific philosophical orientation plays a role in predisposing you to research questions that involve particular kinds of research methods. A paradigm is the collection of facts, assumptions, and practices that guide a particular orientation to knowledge generation. The paradigms we review here are positivist, postpositivist, and relativist (we will primarily focus on constructivism, a relativist position). Lincoln, Lynham, and Guba (2011) also included critical theory as one of the philosophical orientations parallel to the other three. Although it is important, our view is that it is usually not considered a philosophy of science orientation but rather a critical realist philosophical perspective. We will return to critical perspectives briefly later in the chapter. Positivism/Logical Positivism Positivism emerged primarily from the successes of knowledge generation in the natural sciences. Positivism has its roots in the scientific revolution that occurred during the 15th through 17th centuries and the Enlightenment period, which extended from the late 17th into the early 19th centuries. During the period of the scientific revolution, the natural sciences were flourishing. Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543) had used systematic observation to show that the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around, although this discovery was not accepted as truth at the time. Isaac Newton (1642–1726) invented calculus, which was used to discover the laws governing the physical world. The advances in knowledge, principally due to the successes in the natural sciences, influenced philosophers during the Enlightenment. During this time period, philosophers viewed knowledge as originating from thinking (rationalism; e.g., Rene Descartes and Baruch Spinoza) and observation (empiricism; e.g., John Locke and David Hume) (Johnson & Duberley, 2000). Locke (1632–1704), whom many consider the father of modern empiricism, explained that data collected via the senses are internalized, reflected on, and form the basis of ideas that grow in increasing complexity with the addition of new sense data. In essence, he created a logical argument for the role of experience in the production of knowledge. Scientists examine data as perceived by the senses and inductively generate laws based on those data. Auguste Comte (1798–1857) was the first philosopher to use the term positive to distinguish scientific knowledge from fictitious knowledge, associated with religious teachings, and abstract knowledge, associated with metaphysics (Johnson & Duberley, 2000). For Comte, positive knowledge is generated from facts derived from sense perceptions; anything not directly attributable to the senses was relegated to the metaphysical realm and thus not considered valid (Mittwede, 2012). Comte believed that just as empirical laws govern the natural world, universal laws would be discovered that govern social behavior. What emerged from the Enlightenment was a view of science that seeks universal laws through objective observation, description, explanation, prediction, and control of natural phenomena. This view of science was extended to the emerging social sciences in the 19th century. For example, the science of psychology, born in the German university system, continued the split between psychology and religion that had begun with the advent of biology and evolutionary theory. The early German psychologists focused on directly measurable and observable aspects of behavior. The scientific method, which had proven to be highly successful in the natural sciences, was replicated to explain human behavior and cognition. John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) formalized a set of procedures that would become the basis of the scientific method; the scientific experiment was promoted as the optimal means for controlling variables and identifying causal mechanisms. Positivism, based in the methods of the natural sciences, thus became the foundation for knowledge generation in the emerging social sciences. Logical positivism emerged from a group of philosophers, including Rudolf Carnap and others, who created a positivist philosophy of science by formalizing the language of theories. Logical positivism has also been referred to as the received view to recognize the extended influence of positivism on scientific research. Johnson and Duberley (2000) described the four epistemological commitments of logical positivism as follows: Observations of the world through our senses provide the sole foundation for knowledge. Following Comte, those observations could be made in a neutral, value-free manner. What is not observable or is unconscious cannot be included in the realm of scientific knowledge. Anything that is tested empirically must be able to be verified. Methods used in the natural sciences provide the gold standard for scientific knowledge generation. The goal of science is prediction and control. Each of these commitments has clear roots in positivism; what distinguishes positivism from logical positivism is that in the latter, all data must be observable and verifiable and scientific explanations are based in logic. This distinction provided a clear demarcation between what can be considered scientific and what belongs in the metaphysical realm. The approach of the logical positivists is reductionist, much in the same way that physical laws reduce explanations to the mechanisms that occur at the atomic level. Postpositivism As knowledge in the disciplines of physics and the other physical and mathematical sciences rapidly progressed and greatly enhanced our understanding of the world, philosophers such as Karl Popper (1902–1994) and Carl Hempel (1905–1997) realized that there was no way to prove empirical claims to be universally true. Popper was one of the key opponents of the view that verification of theory is the defining feature of science. Rather, in his postpositivist critical rationalist philosophy, he believed that researchers are inherently human and thus fallible. For Popper, falsifiability, the ability of a theory to be shown to be false, was a much more important defining feature of science. He also realized that metaphysical knowledge, defined as knowledge that cannot be seen, sometimes spurs scientific discovery. Such knowledge, for example, can come through hunches that lead to hypotheses that can be tested. Thus, he found the complete rejection of metaphysical knowledge by the logical positivists to be overstated. Two other postpositivist philosophers of science, Polanyi (1958) and Hanson (1958), effectively disputed the idea of value-free observations, arguing that all observations are biased in some way by the observer and his or her values and past experience. Relativism and Constructivism The relativist perspective has its roots in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), who posited that reality, or the external world, is shaped by our experiences, which define unique and individual worldviews. We cannot experience reality directly; instead, we experience phenomena, which are then interpreted by our senses. A relativist perspective holds that there is no external, verifiable reality outside of the observer and, because of this, there can be no value-free, objective observations on the part of the researcher. There can also be no shared truth between researcher and participant. Relativism departs significantly from positivism in that it does not assume the existence of any single true reality. Constructivism (see Schwandt, 1998, for a more detailed discussion of the constructivist position), a relativist position, posits that meaning and knowledge are constructed through the interactions of individuals and it is through these interactions that shared meanings and truths are cocreated (Ponterotto, 2005). What is truth in one context may not be truth in a different context, and all realities are equally valid. Meaning is typically hidden and requires reflection through shared experiences to be discovered. Guba (1990) identified three points where the constructivist position is at odds with the positivist and postpositivist views. First, facts only make sense in the context of a given theory or value proposition, which means that there can be no single reality. Second, theories can never be fully tested; there will always be competing theories, and no one theory will ever be found that explains the facts completely. Third, objectivity is not possible because the observer’s interpretation of what is observed will always be shaped by the value and theoretical systems of the observer. Guba wrote, “The key to openness and the continuing search for ever more informed and sophisticated constructions. Realities are multiple, and they exist in people’s minds” (p. 26). Thus, relativist approaches question the plausibility of a single, objective reality or truth (Gershenson, 2013), and their richness lies in the multiple interpretations of the experiences in which humans engage. In an even more extreme type of constructivism, physical reality is seen as caused by consciousness (Harman, 1991). There are some researchers who challenge the matter-over-mind position; these researchers tend to represent those interested in Eastern spiritual traditions. One example is the power of meditative states and how meditation is seen as a causal mechanism for changes in physical states (self-healing). Some authors in the popular press who espouse the practice of intentionality apply this philosophical perspective of relativism. They propose that one may control events in the physical world with thoughts, affirmations, and/or intentions (Day, 2010; Hay, 1984; Hicks & Hicks, 2006; McTaggart, 2003). All these three paradigms—positivism/logical positivism, postpositivism, and relativism (specifically constructivism for our discussion)—are important and can be described in terms of their essential ontological and epistemological positions. The positions not only represent an evolution of scientific understanding but also reflect the various positions scientists take when thinking about the nature of reality. Understanding paradigmatic, ontological, and epistemological positions provides a path for clearly communicating your assumptions concerning your views of the fundamental nature of reality and the nature of knowledge generation. These paradigms are also closely related to the research approaches to inquiry (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods). For example, most quantitative research tends to be more aligned with positivism and postpositivism, whereas qualitative research tends to be aligned more with constructivist paradigms. These are not hard-and-fast distinctions, however. For example, a qualitative researcher may code data with the intent to reduce the data to units that can be analyzed quantitatively; this approach would be more aligned with a positivist epistemology and ontology. There are many fine tables that provide a clear presentation of these positions (e.g., see Guba, 1990; Lincoln et al., 2011, p. 98). Figure 2.1 is an adaptation and simplification of information provided by Lincoln et al. (2011, p. 98). We show here only two paradigms representing extreme positions; note that your particular philosophical orientation may lie somewhere between the two. There are three things to consider related to ontology and epistemology that require you to answer some important questions that reflect the way you see the world and influence your natural approach to research. The first consideration is your own ontological orientation. For example, do you believe that there is a reality outside of yourself that is independent of your perception of it, or do you believe that there are multiple truths that depend on individual interpretations of a phenomenon? The second consideration is your own epistemological orientation. For example, does the generation of knowledge happen through a neutral, objective relationship between the researcher and the object of research? Is objectivity a goal, though not truly achievable, or is knowledge discovered or created through the relationship between the researcher and the participants who are researched? The third consideration is related to your goals for the research. Are you interested in a distant relationship between yourself and the research participant, or is your goal knowledge generation through interaction with the participants in the research? Each of us has a natural orientation to one or more of these positions, and it is important that you uncover your unique orientation. Figure 2.1 Positivist–Relativist-Constructivist Ontology, Epistemology, and Methods Source: Adapted from Lincoln et al. (2011, p. 98). Once these questions have been addressed, the next step is to explore the literature on these different perspectives in more detail. There are many good resources, including Crotty (1998) and Mackenzie and Knipe (2006); however, it also requires review of current research in the discipline. Which perspectives have been presented in the research in your area of interest? Is there room for other perspectives that challenge current thinking and potentially add new knowledge in the context of that challenge? What theoretical perspectives influence ontology and epistemology in your discipline? The pursuit and exploration of answers to these questions serve to enrich the quality of your research. Critical Perspectives Although we opted not to include critical perspectives as one of the philosophical paradigms, this approach is important and deserves some attention. Critical perspectives derive from Marxist and neo-Marxist theories that examine the ways in which “relationships of domination and exploitation are embedded in the dominant ideas of society” (Burbank & Martins, 2010, p. 30). At the heart of critical theory is acknowledgment of the nature of oppression and how subordinates’ acceptance of their social status continues to reinforce their oppression (Kincheloe, McLaren, & Steinberg, 2011). In their essence, critical theory and critical perspectives seek to understand the nature of oppression and seek the emancipation of oppressed peoples. Emancipation occurs through the process of research with coresearchers (typical of a participatory action framework; see Hacker, 2013), critical evaluation of the contexts in which the research is situated, and the use of research results to make change. Critical theorists are constructivists, on the one hand, but they may also believe that there is a truth that cannot be seen because of its being clouded in power relations. Thus, the relationship between the researcher and what is researched is constantly in flux. Various methods can be used to answer research questions; thus, critical perspectives can be viewed also as being pragmatic. Critical theorists have established lines of scholarship in several important areas, including feminist theory (Gannon & Davies, 2007; Lather, 1994), queer theory (Plummer, 2011), research on indigenous peoples (Smith, 1999), and the intersections of race, gender, and sexuality (Bowleg, 2012), among many others. Figure 2.2 provides a guide to help you understand some of the key differences in goal, philosophy, and approach to inquiry of research among the positivist, constructivist, and critical-realist positions. The goals of research as predictive, interpretive, and emancipatory are consistent with the writings of Habermas (1971). Figure 2.2 Differences in Research Goal, Philosophy, and Approach Among the Positivist/Postpositivist, Constructivist, and Critical-Realist Positions Next, we turn our attention to the role of theory in research. We begin the discussion with a broad understanding of what theories are and how they are constructed. Following the discussion of theories, there are definitions of the key components of theories: concepts, constructs, and hypotheses. Next, we include a brief overview of the role of causality in social science research and its connection to theory. Finally, we close with a presentation of the concept of a continuum of inquiry that brings together the discussion of philosophical perspectives/paradigms and theory in a practical way. The Role of Theory in Research What Is Theory? Reynolds (2007) described four roles for scientific knowledge: “(1) a method of organizing and categorizing ‘things’, a typology; (2) predictions of future events; (3) explanations of past events; and (4) a sense of understanding about what causes events” (p. 2). Reynolds conveyed that each of these four roles must contribute significantly to how theory serves as an organizing principle of knowledge and the expected relationships between categories of objects. The term theory is, unfortunately, used differently in different contexts. Part of the reason for this misuse is that, from a philosophy of science standpoint, the definition of theory has evolved over time, and even philosophers of science do not necessarily agree on the definition. There is also a misunderstanding that theory is not important in quantitative or qualitative research. To complicate matters, the word theory is used carelessly by new scientists as well as by the general public; the terms theory and hypothesis are frequently and inappropriately interchanged. For example, a student might state the “theory” that people in the workplace would work harder if they were offered more vacation time. But this is not a theory; rather, it is a speculation (hypothesis) that needs to be tested empirically via the scientific approach. We define theory as a set of concepts and relational statements that organize scientific knowledge in a focused way. In addition, we will focus on what Reynolds (2007) called the causal process form of theories, which focuses on the potential causal nature of the relational statements constituting theory. In the following sections, we describe each of these components of the definition in more detail. Theories typically have four purposes: describing, explaining, predicting, and controlling or changing phenomena. These four purposes are hierarchical, with each subsequent purpose including the previous one. At the descriptive level, theories simply describe concepts regarding phenomena and the relationships between those concepts. Description serves to increase our understanding of a particular phenomenon. The way we describe a phenomenon orients the reader to particular kinds of explanations (Geertz, 1973). Theories that explain answer the question regarding why a phenomenon occurs. They typically refer to occurrences in the past, whereas theories focused on prediction build on explanation by focusing on future events. If a theory works well to explain something that happened in the past, it should be able to predict what will happen if the same situation occurs in the future. Last, theories can be applied to change or control situations—for example, theories that focus on health behavior change. Some theoreticians, however, do not like the word control and have chosen other terms to reflect prediction and control. For example, Kim (1993) uses prescribe in place of control. Theories may be used in research in two ways. First, theories are used as a guide for the research process, including selecting research questions and interpreting findings. Second, the research may be a test of the theory itself, measuring the concepts and testing the relationships between the concepts to determine the adequacy of the theory. It is important to recognize that theory has an important place in both quantitative and qualitative research; in fact, most granting agencies will not allow one to submit proposals for atheoretical qualitative research. Concepts Concepts are representations of things that exist in reality; they can be specific or vague, abstract or concrete. For example, dog would be a very specific, concrete concept; it is a representation that is widely agreed on. Weight is an abstract concept that is independent of time and location (Reynolds, 2007). If one were to change it to read weight of the chair, this would become a concrete concept. A construct is a type of concept that is theoretical in nature and agreed on in terms of what it generally conveys, but it cannot be directly observed. The social sciences contain many examples of constructs, including intelligence quotient, attitudes, and values. Using operational definitions, scientists measure these constructs even though they cannot see them. Theoretical and Operational Definitions. Concepts have theoretical and operational definitions, which are descriptions in words of the meaning of a concept. Operational definitions may be different for the same concept used in different theories. One example is intelligence. Traditional measures of intelligence, developed by researchers such as David Wechsler, focus on quantitative and verbal reasoning that tends to be highly related to academic achievement. Other researchers have proposed different theoretical definitions of intelligence. For example, David Gardner advanced the theory of multiple intelligences, and Peter Salovey developed a theory around emotional intelligence. Although all scientists may not agree on how a concept is theoretically or operationally defined, you must be very clear in stating how you define the concept in your immediate study. For concepts such as temperature, the operational definition is very clear: It includes use of a thermometer that has been appropriately calibrated and tested. There is little choice or deliberation on the matter of how you might define and measure temperature. For other kinds of concepts and constructs used in the social sciences, operational definitions typically require some kind of assessment that can be either self-reported or administered by a tester. In our example of intelligence, the operational definition is the particular scale that is used to assess it. For example, the Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales are one instrument used to assess traditional intelligence, and the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test is used to assess emotional intelligence. Different theorists have different theoretical definitions of intelligence and thus operationalize it differently using different scales. Operational definitions are important as well in qualitative research. A qualitative education researcher may be interested in measuring motivation; the raise of a hand in class may be one operational definition of motivation. What is important is that each concept that is the focus of your research study must have a theoretical definition that is accompanied by its appropriate operational definitions. Theoretical and operational definitions communicate clearly to other researchers the choices that guide your study. Relational Statements. Relational statements describe the relationship between two or more concepts. Theories consist of a number of relational statements that indicate how concepts are hypothesized to relate to one another. Reynolds (2007) identified two kinds of relational statements. Associational statements describe the concepts or constructs that occur (or do not occur) together. A simple example of an associational statement is the correlation statement. For example, “Lower fat diets are associated with lower risk for cardiovascular disease” is an associative statement that represents a positive correlation between dietary fat and risk for disease. The second kind of relational statement is the causal statement. The correlational statement can be converted to a causal statement: “If men and women in the United States have lower levels of fat in their diet, this will cause lower risk for cardiovascular disease.” In a causal statement, there is a clear independent variable (dietary fat) that is manipulated to cause a change in the dependent variable (risk for cardiovascular disease). It is important not to confuse correlation and causation; we will return to this point later in the discussion. Hypothesis. A hypothesis is a special kind of relational statement that provides a conjecture of the relationship between two or more variables that can be directly tested empirically. Hypotheses are best guesses about the relationships between the concepts of a theory. A review of the literature supports the potential relationship between the concepts, but there is no (or limited) empirical evidence for the relationship. The researcher’s goal is to test the hypothesis and provide evidence that supports or refutes it. In the ideal case, hypotheses that are derived from existing theory serve as further tests of that theory. It is very important to note that the results of a test of a hypothesis do not prove or disprove the larger theory. Rather, they provide evidence that either supports, and thus strengthens, the theory or does not support the theory (see Kuhn, 2012, for an excellent discussion on the role of confirmation and disconfirmation of theory). Reynolds (2007) provided a way to think about the relationship between relational statements and empirical support by stating, “Those with no support are considered hypotheses, those with some support are considered empirical generalizations, and those with ‘overwhelming’ support are considered laws” (p. 88). In the social sciences, there are probably very few laws because the variability of human behavior requires extensive testing of hypotheses over multiple contexts and time periods. Theoretical Model Sometimes, researchers use the terms theory, theoretical model, and theoretical framework synonymously. Theoretical models are visual representations that demonstrate how a subset of concepts constituting a theory are hypothesized to relate to one another. A model can (but may not) include all the concepts of the underlying theory. An example is the health belief model (Rosenstock, 1974), which has been extensively researched and is still used as a theoretical framework today. In public health research, the health belief model has been used to explain people’s health-seeking behavior. It links concepts together, such as external environmental cues and perceived health risk. This model is a representation of concepts that have their roots in field theory, originally conceptualized by Kurt Lewin (1890–1947). Evaluating Theories McEwen (2011) reviewed the nursing literature and identified the internal and external criteria most often used by researchers to evaluate theories; although the review was focused on nursing literature, the criteria have broad generalizability across disciplines. The four key internal criteria are clarity, consistency, logical adequacy, and simplicity. Theories should be clear in terms of definitions of major concepts, with the relationships among those concepts clearly specified. Theories should be internally consistent in terms of their major suppositions, logical connections among concepts, and philosophical underpinnings. Logical adequacy refers to the propositions in the theory being plausible and creating a coherent structure for the theory. Many argue for simplicity, or parsimony, in that the simplest theories that maximally explain the phenomenon should be chosen over more complex theories. However, Dudley-Brown (1997) also suggested that theories might be necessarily complex depending on the phenomenon of interest. Major external criteria include scope or generality, testability and empirical adequacy, fruitfulness, and usefulness or significance. Theories should have scope or generality appropriate to their level of development. Whereas broad scope would be expected of more advanced middle- and higher range theories, which are characterized by more fully developed relationships among concepts that have been empirically tested, narrow scope may characterize newer theories. A theory that is testable has qualities that enable it to be tested empirically to determine if it can be supported or not. A theory is empirically adequate if the results of the studies conducted to test the theory support it. Fruitful theories are those that provide a rich set of concepts that generate multiple relational statements as well as hypotheses for testing. Fruitful theories can thus promote generation of new theories that yield different hypotheses to test. Useful theories are those that can be used to address the phenomena of interest or problems within and/or across disciplines. Useful theories enjoy increasingly broad consensus and acceptability. Reynolds (2007) takes a slightly different position and advocates that theories should not necessarily be compared. He offers four reasons for this. First, because science is not focused on searching for a unitary truth, multiple theories are useful to capture more accurate descriptions of phenomena. Second, theories can never be totally rejected by a single study, and in reality, multiple studies are required over time and across contexts to eventually support or refute a theory. Third, theories may describe processes that affect variables in particular contexts, and these processes may be described differently in different theories. It makes more sense, in his view, to test the extent of influence each process has rather than trying to make a decision about which one is best or correct. Competing theories in this case make sense. Fourth, theories generally cannot be directly compared. Competing theories likely arise because the ones that are in existence fail to account for certain relational statements; thus, comparing them directly would be challenging. Regardless of the stance you choose, you should understand the theories that guide a specific phenomenon through careful examination in terms of their concepts and relational statements. It may be that your study is able to test relational statements as hypotheses that would be consistent with two different theories. In this case, the goal would not be to compare and contrast but rather to understand the assumptions and limitations of each of the competing theories. Choosing a Theory to Guide Research Many studies are published without any reference to a theory guiding the research. The results seem just as valuable and important whether or not there is a theory, so an important question arises as to why theory is important. Even though a research study may not explicitly state a theory, the author of the study always has a particular view of the world. The author also has a particular set of beliefs about the concepts and/or variables and the relationships between them that constitute theory. It is very important to make these theoretical connections explicit in your own research. The connections, when discussed in relation to the existing research in the discipline, provide greater depth of understanding to bridge the relationships between the variables. Acknowledging the theoretical and philosophical connections helps other scientists interpret the results of the study as well as the limitations of those results. The careful use of theory also helps build the case for it. When you begin to explore an area and conduct a literature review, the theories that others have used typically become apparent. Selecting a theory can seem like a daunting task. As you read more about the theories relevant to your topic area in the discipline, you will be drawn more to some theories than to others. The theories to which you are drawn are most likely those that fit best with your worldview. Before selecting one particular theory to guide your research, examine the underlying assumptions of the theory to ensure that they fit with your philosophical perspectives. One question that is useful to ask yourself in examining assumptions is “What do I have to believe about the world and about human beings in order for me to accept or use this theory?” For example, if you are choosing a theory of human behavior and you hold a basic belief that human beings are unique and active creators of their own actions, then your assumptions are not congruent with those of the theory of behaviorism. Behaviorism posits behavior as a response to external stimuli. Thus, behaviorism would not be an obvious choice for the underlying theoretical and philosophical perspective for your research. However, if you take the position that human behavior is the result of responses to environmental stimuli, as posited by B. F. Skinner, for example, the choice of behaviorism as a theoretical perspective would yield congruence of theory and fundamental assumptions. Cause and Effect Correlation, as described earlier, does not necessarily support causation. In correlational relationships, one can have a positive relationship, a negative relationship, or no relationship. If the correlation is positive, the best you can conclude, in the absence of any other evidence, is that when the value of one variable is high (or low), so is the value of the other. You cannot determine which variable is responsible, and it may be that the cause is actually another variable that was not tested. One example of what is commonly described as the third-variable problem is the correlation between bars and churches. In general, when the number of bars in a community is high, so is the number of churches (it would seem rather silly that opening bars would somehow cause more churches to open). In this example, one indeed does not cause the other; rather, the increase in each is directly influenced by population growth. Bullock, Harlow, and Mulaik (1994) provided several criteria required to establish causation. First, the two variables must be associated (correlated). Second, the variables must be isolated so that other, extraneous variables are removed as possible causes for the covariation (correlation). Finally, the variable hypothesized to be the causal variable must precede the other in time. In the laboratory, factors hypothesized to be the cause can be imposed by the research design. For example, we know that when we heat a gas, the heat causes it to expand in a very predictable way. Expansion does not cause the temperature to rise; rather, the expansion is due to increasing the temperature. Determining causal relationships in social behavior is much more challenging. The influences on behavior are so great and varied that controlling for all the possible effects is virtually impossible, even in a laboratory setting. Thus, measuring behavior is imprecise. There are also limits to the control of variables based on ethical principles. For example, a researcher cannot create an experimental group of nonsmokers and ask them to begin smoking in order to examine the causal effects of smoking on depression. People also tend to behave differently when they know that they are being observed, so it is not typically possible to know if the precise, hypothesized cause of the behavior is being measured. Each of these challenges limits the degree to which we can assert causation in almost every situation involving human behavior. However, research helps scientists make progress in the search for causal relationships. First, longitudinal studies, those that assess people’s behavior at multiple time points, can allow researchers the opportunity to determine sequencing in time, a critical requirement for causality. Second, replicating studies across multiple contexts and times can help solidify evidence that a particular relationship is durable and specific variables are causal. One example of how evidence over time leads to causal assumptions is the extensive evidence of the correlational relationship between smoking and lung cancer. The cumulative evidence of the association between tobacco use and lung cancer, controlling for the potential effects of other variables, has been overwhelming. Thus, correlation studies test for the extent to which variables change in a coordinated fashion, typically in naturalistic settings, without determining why the variables behave as they do. Cause-and-effect studies focus on determining which variable is responsible for the change. Conclusion The ways in which worldview and paradigms, theory, approaches to inquiry, and methods interact are complicated. Houghton et al. (2012) provide a good discussion of the connections between aims, paradigms, and methods in research, which may be helpful to you in your own research. We provided context about research philosophy and theory that can give you a rich set of ideas on the types of studies available to you. It is always good to spend time reflecting on your orientation to the world. For example, are you more positivist in terms of ontology (i.e., you believe that there is one true reality) or constructivist/interpretivist (i.e., you believe that there are multiple local realities based on unique circumstances of time and place)? Understanding the answer to this question can help orient you to those approaches to inquiry that make the most sense and are consistent with your own views of the world. Figure 2.3 provides a visual to demonstrate that the research process is not necessarily as linear as one might think. Your worldview influences the theories on which you focus and the research approaches with which you are most comfortable; however, it is also true that the process of research can change your view of the world. In addition, researchers should not be constrained by any one method. Multiple methods can be brought together to answer your research question. Understanding the critical roles that paradigm, theory, approach to inquiry, and methods play in the research process can guide you to create a research project that is as traditional or as critical/emancipatory as your goals dictate. Figure 2.3 The Interplay Among Worldview and Paradigm, Theory, Approach to Inquiry, and Methods Questions for Reflection Write down your ontological and epistemological views on the nature of truth, knowledge, and reality. Based on your reflections, decide whether your worldview aligns most closely with a positivist, postpositivist, constructivist, or critical-realist position. Based on your articulation of your worldview, describe what this means for how you view science. How will this affect the kind of research approach you choose? Describe, from an ontological perspective, your own ontology, that is, your view of “reality.” In other words, do you consider yourself a realist or a relativist? Given your view, what types of research designs might you consider that are consistent with this position? Consider an area in your discipline that you would like to research. What do you see as the ultimate goal of your research? For example, are you seeking more traditional outcomes, such as those that can be achieved through experimental studies, or is the goal more emancipatory and participatory in that the outcomes are influenced by coresearchers and other stakeholders? Discuss what might happen if your philosophy of science, choice of theory, and method are not congruent. Key Sources Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Green, K., & LeBihan, J. (1996). Critical theory and practice: A coursebook. London, UK: Routledge. Hayden, J. A. (2013). Introduction to health behavior theory. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Johnson, P., & Duberley, J. (2000). Understanding management research: An introduction to epistemology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Kuhn, T. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions (50th anniversary ed.). Urbana, IL: University of Chicago Press. Malhotra-Bentz, V., & Shapiro, J. J. (1998). Mindful inquiry in social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Reynolds, P. D. (2007). A primer in theory construction. Boston, MA: Pearson. References Bowleg, L. (2012). The problem with the phrase “women and minorities”: Intersectionality, an important theoretical framework for public health. American Journal of Public Health, 102(7), 1267–1273. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.300750 Buckingham, W., & Burnham, D. (2015). The philosophy book: Big ideas simply explained. London, UK: Penguin Group. Bullock, H. E., Harlow, L. L., & Mulaik, S. (1994). Causation issues in structural modeling research. Structural Equation Modeling Journal, 1, 253–267. doi:10.1080/10705519409539977 Burbank, P. M., & Martins, D. C. (2010). Symbolic interactionism and critical perspective: Divergent or synergistic? Nursing Philosophy, 11, 25–41. doi:10.1111/j.1466-769X.2009.00421.x. Clark, T. W. (1992). Relativism and the limits of rationality. The Humanist, 52, 25–42. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Day, L. (2010). How to rule the world from your couch. New York, NY: Atria Books. Dudley-Brown, S. L. (1997). The evaluation of nursing theory: A method for our madness. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 34, 76–83. doi:10.1016/S0020-7489(96)00024-7 Gannon, S., & Davies, B. (2007). Postmodern, poststructural, and critical theories. In S. N. Hesse-Biber (Ed.), Handbook of feminist research: Theory and praxis (pp. 71–106). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York, NY: Basic Books. Gershenson, C. (2013). The implications of interactions for science and philosophy. Foundations of Science, 18, 781–790. doi:10.1007/s10699-012-9305-8 Guba, E. (1990). The paradigm dialog. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests (J. J. Shapiro, Trans.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press. (Original work published 1968) Hacker, K. (2013). Community-based participatory research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Hanson, N. R. (1958). Patterns of discovery. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Harman, W. (1991). A re-examination of the metaphysical foundations of modern science. Petaluma, CA: Institute of Noetic Sciences. Hay, L. (1984). You can heal your life. Carlsbad, CA: Hay House. Hicks, E., & Hicks, J. (2006). The law of attraction: The basics of the teachings of Abraham. Carlsbad, CA: Hay House. Houghton, C., Hunter, A., & Meskell, P. (2012). Linking aims, paradigm and method in nursing research. Nurse Researcher, 20(2), 34–39. doi:10.7748/nr2012.11.20.2.34.c9439 Johnson, P., & Duberley, J. (2000). Understanding management research: An introduction to epistemology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Kim, H. S. (1993). Putting theories into practice: Problems and prospects. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18, 1632–1639. Kim, H. S. (1999). Critical reflective inquiry for knowledge development in nursing practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 29(5), 1205–1212. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.1999.01005.x Kincheloe, J. L., McLaren, P., & Steinberg, S. R. (2011). Critical pedagogy and qualitative research: Moving to the bricolage. In Y. S. Lincoln, S. A. Lynham, & E. G. Guba (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 162–177). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Kuhn, T. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions (50th anniversary ed.). Urbana, IL: University of Chicago Press. Kukla, A. (2000). Social constructivism and the philosophy of science. London, UK: Routledge. Lather, P. (1994). Critical inquiry in qualitative research: Feminist and poststructural perspectives. In B. F. Crabtree, W. L. Miller, R. B. Addison, V. J. Gilchrist, & A. J. Kuzel (Eds.), Exploring collaborative research in primary care (pp. 103–114). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2011). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 96–127). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Mackenzie, N., & Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods, and methodology. Issues in Educational Research, 16, 1–11. McEwen, M. (2011). Theory analysis and evaluation. In M. McEwen & E. M. Wills (Eds.), Theoretical basis for nursing (3rd ed., pp. 89–106). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. McTaggart, L. (2003). The field: The quest for the secret force of the universe. London, UK: Element. Miller, J. R., & Burbank, P. M. (1994). Congruence among philosophy, theory and method in nursing research. In Workgroup of European Nurse Researchers (Ed.), The contribution of nursing research: Past–present–future: Vol. 2. Proceedings at the 7th Biennial Conference (pp. 704–709). Oslo, Norway: Falch Hurtigtrykk. Mittwede, S. K. (2012). Research paradigms and their use and importance in theological inquiry and education. Journal of Education and Christian Belief, 16(1), 23–40. doi:10.1177/205699711201600104 Plummer, K. (2011). Critical humanism and queer theory: Living with the tensions. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 195–212). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 52(2), 126–136. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.126 Reynolds, P. D. (2007). A primer in theory construction. Boston, MA: Pearson. Rosenstock, I. M. (1974). Historical origins of the health belief model. Health Education Monographs, 2(4), 328–335. doi:10.1177/109019817400200403 Schwandt, T. A. (1998). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 221–259). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. London, UK: Zed Books. Warren, J. R., & Marshall, B. (1983). Unidentified curved bacilli on gastric epithelium in active chronic gastritis. Lancet, 1, 1273–1275. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(83)92719-8