I'm Working On This Question And I Need A Sample Draft To Help Me Study

understandingtheory.pdf

Home >Law homework help >Criminal homework help >I'm Working On This Question And I Need A Sample Draft To Help Me Study

Explaining and Understanding Theory

In: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Methodology

By: Kerry E. Howell

Pub. Date: 2015

Access Date: June 17, 2022

Publishing Company: SAGE Publications Ltd

City: London

Print ISBN: 9781446202999

Online ISBN: 9781473957633

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781473957633

Print pages: 19-31

This PDF has been generated from SAGE Research Methods. Please note that the pagination of the

online version will vary from the pagination of the print book.

https://dx.<wbr>doi.<wbr>org/10.4135/9781473957633

Explaining and Understanding Theory

Introduction

Chapter 2 further examines the relationships between theory, truth, knowledge and reality. Indeed, it

concentrates on the notion of theory and considers how this underpins and/or relates to research in social

science. This chapter also considers the links between ontological and theoretical perspectives in relation

to theory and paradigms of inquiry. The etymology of theory is found in antiquity and derives from the

term theoria, which means to behold or view. Indeed theory has the same root as theatre, which provides

reflections on society and the world. Consequently, one may argue that theory involves a way of viewing or

reflecting on the world and in this way it is different from knowledge of how the world is (reality or truth).

Conversely, one may also consider that theories do actually identify knowledge of how the world is through

providing means of looking at it; that there is no difference between knowledge or truth and the theories that

reflect these.

The 20th century witnessed an exponential growth in the social sciences; they have overtaken the arts

and depending on one's comprehension of what they should achieve they now confront or mimic natural

sciences. Indeed, it is this distinction within the social sciences that underpin and facilitate how social

sciences are perceived and applied. This distinction involves debate regarding the very nature of knowledge

(ontology), the relationship between humanity and knowledge (epistemology) and issues regarding the rigour

required when developing or testing knowledge (methodology). What social science entails and why it is

important for humanity is intrinsically linked with philosophical debates regarding empiricism, rationalism and

phenomenology in relation to emergent paradigms of inquiry that provide the basic beliefs of individuals

when using methodological approaches in the development of distinct research programmes within the social

sciences. Winch (1991) pointed out that a certain fallacy existed regarding social sciences and their slow

development in relation to the natural sciences. Indeed, the social sciences had developed gradually because

they were slow to fully mirror natural science procedures; they had failed to fully emancipate themselves

from philosophy. Winch (1991) accepts the idea that social science may not have found a Newton but

does not consider that if social science is to evolve it should adhere to natural science premises rather

than philosophical perspectives. This text acknowledges this position and explains different perceptions of

the social sciences and theoretical frameworks employed in relation to scientific or positivistic positions

and the relationships with philosophical premises regarding phenomenology. Overall the distinctions provide

backdrops for what different schools consider social science theory is capable of achieving.

Social science is by its nature theoretically informed. Consequently theory discovery development or meta-

theorising should be encouraged as it is a necessary component for rigorous social science research.

Theorising involves the systematic study of social activity through explicating, interpreting, understanding

and predicting small- or large-scale human action. Social science research incorporates a search for reliable

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 2 of 13 Explaining and Understanding Theory

theoretical frameworks. Theory generates pluralism, produces choice, creates alternative scenarios,

formulates debate and communication, increases awareness and develops understanding.

Definition Box: Reasons for Theory

Theory is usually seen as being pointless; people usually considering it to be all well in

theory but that it will not work in practice. Theory is seen as something beyond everyday

existence and unimportant for people's daily lives. However, theory provides a means

by which individuals may consider the difficulties they face on a day to day basis or

may understand other individual, social or political problems. Theory allows generalisation

and through synthesising the theoretical and the practical, understanding is enhanced.

Fundamentally everyone thinks in a theoretical manner, the problem is we do not realise

we are doing so and undertake this thinking in an unsystematic way. When effected by

situations or policies they cannot control individuals theorise; I am unemployed because

of EU membership and incomers from other Member States or I am unemployed because

of austerity cuts and recession. Each is an example of theorising about one's specific

situation in relation to a general rationale. Overall, theory can explain our everyday close

experiences by relating these to something more distant and abstract. Indeed, theory can

inform us about that which we have no experience; theory can inform an individual about

the world. This is closely related to the Kantian idea of going visiting.

Rather than pursue proof, social science theory can be defined by its ability to provide understanding

of situations at precise moments in time. Take positivism and post positivism, the former theory involves

the pursuit of laws and the latter approximations derived from experimentation in idealised situations,

which allows explanation of phenomenon through what has been labelled thin-data. For critical theory,

constructivism and participatory paradigms of inquiry theory is about providing frameworks for understanding

situations and phenomenon through thick-data (for further on paradigms of inquiry see below). Theory and

practice are two sides of the same coin; good practice is informed by accurate theoretical frameworks

and accurate theory through sound understanding of practical situations. The relationship between theory

and practice has been discussed for centuries with some incisive considerations being determined during

Enlightenment. Indeed, as noted in Chapter 1 we discussed how Immanuel Kant undertook a consideration of

the relationship between theory and practice during the late 18th century and argued that theory and practice

were inseparable and should be assessed together in all analyses and studies.

Theories entail different understandings or explanations of truth, reality, knowledge development as well as

acquisition, application evaluation and critique. The paradigms of inquiry discussed in this chapter render

explicit the linkages between theory ontology and methodology. Furthermore, different types of theory in terms

of theory development, ideational formulation, normativism and levels of theory in terms of grand, meso and

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 3 of 13 Explaining and Understanding Theory

http://methods.sagepub.com/book/an-introduction-to-the-philosophy-of-methodology/n1.xml

substantive theory are explored. This chapter also draws on the abstract philosophy discussed in Chapter

1 and assesses how this underpins theoretical perspectives and ultimately identifies a means of theoretical

synthesis in relation to paradigms of inquiry and methodological approaches. Theory incorporates a ‘set of

well-developed concepts related through statements of relationship, which together constitute an integrated

framework that can be used to explain or predict phenomena’ (Strauss and Corbin, 1998: 15). Social science

is theoretically informed and that ontological perspectives determine one's interpretation of truth, reality and/

or theory. Consequently, theorising, theory discovery, theory building or development should be encouraged.

Theorising involves the systematic study of social activity through explicating, interpreting, understanding and

if possible predicting small- or large-scale action. Furthermore, this chapter discusses what theory is and its

role in relation to practice and contends that theories enable pluralism and choice; provide communication

and open debate, encourage sensitivity toward data and open deliberation as well as enhances awareness

of dogmatism and greater understanding of alternative perspectives.

What Is Theory?

Do theories reflect reality, knowledge or truth? Or are they an aspect of the knowledge, truth and overall reality

that is being expressed? In examining these questions or different perspectives of theory it may be worth

assessing how theories have been used in the past. Take the theories of the heavens: antiquity considered

that celestial bodies were different from earthly counterparts and this differentiation is what made things with

earthly elements fall and entities such as the stars and comets to remain in the heavens. With Newton's

theory of gravity the lenses for observing the world (theory) changed so knowledge transformed in relation

to this. The distinction between earthly and heavenly matter dissipated and gravity in relation to planet orbits

and the speed matter fell to earth became the means of explaining why some things fall and others do not.

The universal theory of gravity sufficed for many centuries but was surpassed during the early 20th century

when challenged by relativity and quantum theories. Consequently, if Newton's theory of gravity was seen to

fully correspond with reality it encompassed truth and knowledge of reality until around 1900 when it was, in

post-positivist terms, falsified. Or based on Kuhnian (see below for further) paradigm shifts in a critical theory,

constructivist or participatory context the theory continued to infinitely develop as a form of insight into reality;

that is, there is no end-game where an absolute truth exists in relation to a theoretical perspective. There

exists a continual dialectical process involving parts of the older theory in relation to the present theory out

of which a future theory will emerge. Knowledge is shaped by our theoretical lenses; knowledge of planetary

movement shifted from Ptolemaic epicycles to gravitational forces, then relativity and quantum theory. In a

similar fashion the idea of fixed species in biology gave way to the theory of evolution. Fundamentally, theory

provides the means by which we are able to organise factual evidence that determines knowledge. The way

we think provides the means by which we organise or categorise data; our conceptualisations of space, time,

causality, relativity, universality, and so on, provide general forms of categories that inform or constitute the

basis of theoretical insight.

Clear perception requires a general awareness of how experience is shaped by theories that implicitly or

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 4 of 13 Explaining and Understanding Theory

http://methods.sagepub.com/book/an-introduction-to-the-philosophy-of-methodology/n1.xml

explicitly inform the way we think. In this way, experience and knowledge incorporate the same space and

involve the same process, they are not separate but synthesised entities; knowledge and experience are

located in the same space. Theories are ever changing and continually shaping and forming our experience

and knowledge. Indeed, theorising in relation to nature is similar to theorising in relation to humanity. If one

approaches a person as an enemy then the reaction of the individual concerned will confirm this apparition;

the theoretical position will be self-fulfilling. If one approaches nature from a specific theoretical perspective

then it is likely that this position will be self-fulfilling. If we believe in a positivistic sense that that theory gives

immutable laws relating to truth or knowledge then it verifies what already exists and underlines the fact that

such will always exist. This leads toward a blinkered comprehension of society, nature and the individual;

can we ever have ultimate knowledge or know reality as it really is? Can a reality totally independent of our

thought and theoretical perspectives exist? If so then we may approach the object with fixed concepts and

theories and continue to confirm the limitations of these theories and thoughts in relation to experience. Every

theoretical perspective involves a distinct mode of thinking, for example, antiquity heavenly and earthly matter

or Newtonian centrifugal forces. These differences can be seen as separate ways of observing rather than

denoting what really exists; in this way, they do not imply the separate existence of matter from thought.

Conversely, theories may be considered as precise descriptions of reality. However, when historical changes

to theory are considered this seems unrealistic. We should be aware of how we think through theoretical

frameworks and see these as modes of observing rather than providing a true likeness of reality as it

actually exists. In this context, theory may be seen as a particular way of viewing an object that provides

an appearance of the said entity. Fundamentally the observer and observed become the same through the

theoretical perspective used by the observer specifically determining the outcome or interpretation of the

observed. Reality is indivisible and involves a close if not symbiotic relationship between theory and practice.

In this context, there is wholeness to the world and the way it is analysed and researched. Theory provides a

kind of adhesive that brings together the subject and the object which allows the observer to look closely and

learn from the whole process of thought and discover activity relevant to understanding the world in a holistic

context.

In contrast with practice or action, theory incorporates contemplation about what is viewed. In the natural

sciences and positivistic studies, theory involves the relationship between cause and effect through the

study of observable phenomenon whereas the social sciences and humanities deal with ideas and activity

which are not so easy to observe or interpret. Theory is closely related to the idea of truth and consists of

a set of statements that give a true understanding (knowledge) regarding certain phenomenon. That said,

truth is always relative to a given theory and may be true in one context but not in another; consequently,

interpretation becomes a central element regarding relationships between truth, knowledge and theory. In

sum, through truthful statements theory reflects and explains reality and provides knowledge of phenomenon

under analysis. The authority of theory and the academics that expound them ‘must be rooted in their

truthfulness’; through accuracy and sincerity true beliefs and knowledge are formulated (Williams, 2004: 11).

Theoretical frameworks rely on metaphysical subjectivism in that truth depends on beliefs and is relativist to

situations and across cultures.

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 5 of 13 Explaining and Understanding Theory

Kantian Ideas on Theory and Practice

Kant (1995b) argued that a collection of rules even when they are practical are identified as a theory when the

rules are general and abstractions from the practical. In constrast, all practical activities are labelled practice.

Rules with a particular purpose incorporating ‘conceived principles of procedure’ are considered practical

(Kant, 1995b: 61). From such a position Kant deduced that no matter how complete a theory (to provide

a link with practice) the middle ground between theory and practical application must be realised. A theory

contains a general rule that needs to be judged when the practitioner determines the extent the theory fits

with it in practice and when it does not (see Toumlin below for a similar explanation). However, rules that

direct judgement cannot be provided on every occasion with judgements ‘subsuming each instance under

the previous rule (for this would involve an infinite regress’ (Kant, 1995b: 61). Indeed, because of such many

theoreticians can be found that lack judgement so may never be practical; Kant considered that a number of

lawyers or doctors who even though well educated were unable to provide practical advice. Conversely, even

though someone may have good judgement, theory will be always be incomplete and may only be continually

improved (or for Kant perfected) through further and future experimentation and experience from which the

theoretician draws new rules that informed and finally completed the theory. Consequently, it is not surprising

that in numerous contexts the theory may be wanting but this is not necessarily the fault of the theory. The

problem is that not enough theory exists; we need to learn from experience and develop further theories. Kant

argued that ‘no one can pretend to be practically versed in a branch of knowledge and yet treat theory with

scorn, without exposing the fact the he is an ignoramus in his subject’ (1995b: 62). That said the ignoramus

that ignores theory in practice is easier to excuse than the theoretician who denies the use of theory in the

practical world.

The individual that is immersed in theory then denies the relevance for practice may be seen as to create

‘philosopher's dreams’ or ‘empty ideals’ with no ‘practical validity’ (Kant, 1995b: 62). This would mean that

mechanics or electrics would have no relevance for engineers and medical theory no relevance to general

practitioners (GPs) or medical consultants. However, a theory which deals with more abstract phenomenon in

terms of perception or philosophy may consist of reason and have limited practical application. In this context

the distinction between theory and practice may be more explicit. Overall, for the social sciences there is a

relationship between theory and practice because theory explains and assesses knowledge or truth which is

derived from reality or practical, empirical situations and contexts.

Paradigms of Inquiry and the Impact on Theory

Theory is concerned with building substantive understanding, normativism and ideational simplification.

Substantive theories are built on the basis of the data collected and normativism determines theoretical

frameworks that have an ethical or moral dimension (there is an ‘ought’ aspect to the theory). Ideational

theory involves simplification of confounding variables and is closely linked to the positivist and post-

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 6 of 13 Explaining and Understanding Theory

positivist paradigms of inquiry. Theories entail different understandings of knowledge and truth, knowledge

development as well as acquisition, application evaluation and critique.

There are a number of understandings of theory that clearly relate to distinct paradigms of inquiry (further

discussions regarding philosophical positions and paradigms of inquiry are undertaken below). In general,

theory can be positivistic or law orientated, in the natural sciences universal laws are pursued whereas in

the social sciences law-like regularities are developed (the distinction between positivism and post-positivism

is discussed in more detail in Chapter 3). Both natural and social scientific laws should enable prediction.

Overall, this theoretical perspective is a universal law-oriented understanding of theory relating to a positivist

paradigm of inquiry and methodology in the pursuit of regularities and prediction. Theory in this context is

concerned with immutable laws and prediction.

A positivistic perspective of theory involves an idealised or simplified understanding of reality or truth. It is

impossible to understand all variables and those that confound should be removed with focus on conditions

that provide ideal situations. Perfect knowledge cannot be wholly realised but it is assumed in the shape of a

model; prediction is sought in an ideal situation. Theory in this context incorporates falsification and prediction

in an idealised or model world. Consequently, perfect knowledge at a given moment in time is assumed to

hold; but for post-positivism only until such is challenged and usurped.

Both positivism and post-positivism perceive theory as an indication or statement of relationships between

abstracted ideas covering a number of empirical observations. This is an empiricist view of theory

development, which through observation identifies hypotheses or nulls hypotheses that are tested through

reliable (replicable) scientific methods. The goal for positivist theory is parsimonious explanation and

prediction; generalisation and deterministic relationships between cause and effect are imperative.

Critical theory, constructivist and participatory paradigms involve interpretive perspectives of theory which

emphasise understanding and the relationship between interpretation and the phenomenon under

investigation. Emphasis is placed on the interconnection between patterns rather than the identification

of cause and effect. Theory involves interpretation through wide-ranging imaginative analysis and allows

for multiple meanings, realities and uncertainty. Values and facts are intrinsically linked and knowledge or

truth is dialectical or changeable and provisional. As social life evolves into different things/epochs so too

does the theory that reflects or provides an understanding of this transformation. As the phenomenological

approach has challenged positivism, interpretive theory has continued to become more prevalent in social

science research. Theory and practice are closely related and praxis is developed. Aristotle considered

that free human beings were engaged in three fundamental activities: Theoria for which the objective was

truth; Poeisis where the objective is production; Praxis where the end goal or telos was action. Praxis

eventually comes to mean the process by which the relationship between reflection and practice or theory

and practice can transform society and individuals within it. Fundamentally, theories are situated in specific

contexts and the experiences and perspectives of people and institutions within these locations. Interpretive

theories deal with the abstraction of phenomenon and clearly illustrate the depth and relevance of the

theories to the phenomenon under investigation. Subjectivity involves a central position because it is not

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 7 of 13 Explaining and Understanding Theory

http://methods.sagepub.com/book/an-introduction-to-the-philosophy-of-methodology/n3.xml

possible to remove the researcher and the bias involved from the investigation. Theories allow sense-

making and are the means for making ideas fit with phenomenon; relationships between phenomena are

made explicit. This process involves theorising that incorporates engagement with those being researched

while at the same time bringing abstract conceptualisations to bear upon the investigation. It also stimulates

imagination and provides further lenses and perspectives for comprehending the empirical data. Indeed,

there are numerous methodologies that provide the means for interpretive theory construction including,

grounded theory, ethnography, hermeneutical and action research (each of these will be discussed in greater

detail below). Furthermore, interpretive theories are based on ontological and epistemological positions

that are relativist and subjective. A critical theory perspective asserts that influential groups define what

theories entail; they are developed in relation to historical change and incorporate ethical challenges to the

existing state of affairs. There are close linkages between theoretical development and ethical reflection.

Habermas (1971) related social science to human interaction based on ethical considerations. Changes

in society have brought about human emancipation and social science should not be defined in terms of

its accumulated stock of knowledge but its commitment to ethical principles. Society is in a state of flux

so theories cannot be determined through correspondence to a present state of affairs because social

mobilisation may prove the existing state of affairs unjust. Furthermore, because social scientists participate in

the research process their judgements are part of interpretations underpinning knowledge and/or theoretical

frameworks. Indeed, Habermas edges toward a constructivist perspective where theory is no different from

everyday life and ground in communities. In this context, theory takes the form of axiomatic models and

ongoing theory development. Social science theory is defined in terms of its ability to provide validity and

understanding rather than its ability to enable measurement, proof or prediction. Constructivism can mean

that individuals actively engage with and create their worlds; that is people perceive reality differently and

create their own understanding of phenomenon. Or that phenomenon exists in its own right and involves

a fundamental meaning that enables a predictable and true interpretation of reality. The latter perspective

involves some form of externality that impacts on the individual in a uniform context and leans toward critical

theory and positivist ontologies and the former a ‘radical constructivism’ that considers reality is different for

each individual and adheres to a participatory ontology. These distinctions can also be explained in terms of

the distinctions between constructivism and constructionism; that is, the extent to which the individual has

control of constructions and how far these constructions are socially determined through institutions and/

or interaction between agents and society. However, there is core agreement between constructivism and

constructionism and certain authors have attempted a synthesis of these approaches (these are discussed in

more detail in Chapter 6).

The participatory inquiry paradigm advocates a philosophy in which the researcher and those being

researched are treated interdependently and responsive to one another in the research process. Torbert

argued that ‘a participatory ontology treats the role of subjective experience in research as essential, and

looks to the research process as a means of healing the split that so often exists among knowledge,

experience, and action’ (2001: 3). Furthermore, ‘a true social science will integrate subjective (first-person),

intersubjective (second-person), and objective (third-person) inquiry in ongoing real-time, for the sake of

developing all humans’ capacities for inquiring more and more of our time how to act in a timely fashion’

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 8 of 13 Explaining and Understanding Theory

http://methods.sagepub.com/book/an-introduction-to-the-philosophy-of-methodology/n6.xml

(Torbert, 2001: 3).

Positivism is extreme in its interpretation of ontology and epistemology and is difficult to deal with in the

social sciences, which causes a number of problems when attempting to synthesise positivist interpretations

of theory with other paradigms. For instance if there is one totally understandable reality that may be

discovered through immutable laws this contradicts the ontological positions of each of the other paradigms.

With the change in ontology and epistemology between positivism and post-positivism we observe the

recognition of human fallibility and theory replacement through critical analysis. This accepts that theory

changes through falsification, which in itself is part of a historical process; critical theory through challenging

the status quo, renders this same point explicit. Consequently, although ontologies, epistemologies and

methodological approaches initially seem exclusive, when we examine them in more detail they may be

considered inclusive and provide the opportunity for mixing theoretical perspectives to attain explanation

and understanding of phenomenon. Furthermore, these gradients of theory identify levels of normativism;

for instance positivism would try and deny normative perspectives whereas constructivism and participatory

paradigms would embrace them.

In the following discussions, for the sake of clarity the above paradigms will be labelled in a general sense,

as positivist and phenomenology, the former includes and primarily incorporates the above definition of post-

positivism, the latter includes critical theory, constructivism and participatory paradigms (discussed in more

detail in the following chapters). This text understands the former as leaning toward modernism and the latter

postmodernism. In the former, theory has to be objective, identify cause and effect, provide generalisation or

prediction and ensure reliability. The latter however, is more concerned with frameworks for providing insight,

understanding and validity in historical and specific circumstances.

Table 2.1 Types of theory

Personal theorising Reflection regarding individual experience in relation to wider notions or

rationales.

Substantive theory Derived from data analysis, rich conceptualisations of specific situations.

Models Simplified perspectives of phenomenon.

Meso theory Middle-range theories that draw on substantiated substantive theories and

models.

Grand theory and philosophical

positions Sweeping abstract explanations of phenomenon and existence.

Definition Box: Theory Typology

• Philosophy

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 9 of 13 Explaining and Understanding Theory

• Grand theory

• Meso or middle-range theory

• Substantive theory or models

• Individual.

Individuals theorise in relation to experience through considering empirical phenomenon

in relation to non-empirical phenomenon. Substantive theory is more systematic than

this but draws on experience either through a combination of selves or the individual

researcher interpretation collation and synthesis between theory and practice occurs.

Grand theory involves combinations of meso theory and meso theory combinations of

substantive theories. Philosophy involves total abstraction and limited relationships with

practice. Grand theory and meso theory can collectively be known as formal theory.

To enable a more detailed comprehension of theory in relation to the distinct philosophical positions, this

chapter now concentrates on positivism from a social science perspective so mainly consists of post-positivist

perspectives and phenomenology (which included the idea of a general critical theory, constructivism and

participatory paradigms). Given these philosophical positions the text arrived at distinctions in theoretical

perspectives, and differences in the way theory can be used in explaining and/or understanding phenomenon.

The work provides different levels of theory, on the one hand, and different intensities of normative

expectation, on the other hand. As noted above, for positivism, theory is the pursuit of laws and for post-

positivism approximations in idealised situations and explanations of phenomenon through thin data. For

phenomenology theory is about providing frameworks for understanding situations and phenomenon through

thick data.

This text constructs a typology in relation to levels of theory. Broad philosophical perspectives and grand

theory are not able to fit well with the positivist interpretation of theory even though grand theory would

correspond more easily with post-positivism. On the other hand, although meso theory could also correspond

with elements of phenomenology it does provide a means by which post-positivist stipulations regarding

theory could be realised. Substantive theory is derived from one specific area or part of the research and

can be identified by breaking down theory into constituent parts. Philosophical frameworks, grand and meso

theories are incrementally more abstract and consequently conceptually advanced.

The more simplified the theory, the easier it is to identify cause and effect or dependent and independent

variables. However, the greater this simplification the more difficult it is to provide a full understanding and

explanation. Consequently there exists a distinction between simplified models and more in-depth substantive

theories. Substantive theory is developed through inductive more constructivist procedures whereas models

are normally positivistic simplifications. Synthesis of substantive, meso and grand theories provides insight

and understanding with some identification of cause and effect. However, grand theory and philosophical

frameworks allow understanding in a generic context but is unable to produce prediction or historical

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 10 of 13 Explaining and Understanding Theory

determinism (even though it may seek to accomplish these objectives). Because of this deficiency and the

fact that they were difficult to verify in a positivist context in the 1960s and 1970 grand theory came under

an onslaught of criticism. This led to a re-assessment of what social science theory could actually achieve.

Positivist notions of prediction were challenged and through a synthesis of post-positivist and phenomenology

meso and substantive theory emerged and gave more incisive theoretical explanations for social science.

Table 2.2 Paradigms of inquiry

Philosophy, grand, meso and substantive theory are closely interrelated because (as noted by Kant above)

reality, truth/knowledge and theory develop through interactions between historical environments, institutions

and individuals (practical situations). Consequently, we may argue that social actors in a changing historical

and social context construct reality truth/knowledge and theory. Researchers are not objective impassive

analysts; they themselves are part of the construction process and as social values change theory is re-

assessed in relation to these changes (George, 1976). Prediction in the social sciences is difficult if not

impossible to formulate, consequently grand theory should be seen as a means of ‘organising concepts’,

‘selecting relevant facts’ and determining how the ‘narrative should be constructed’ (George, 1976). That

said, social research is about a mix of ontological and epistemological positions through a synthesis of

methodological approaches and methods of data collection.

Conclusion

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 11 of 13 Explaining and Understanding Theory

Overall, these deliberations have continued to have resonance for philosophers during the 20th century

and researchers today identify these distinctions in terms of paradigms of inquiry in relation to different

methodological approaches used in diverse research programmes. To comprehend the relationship between

subjective and objective stances in research programmes in terms of specific paradigms of inquiry and

methodological approaches, this chapter has assessed the differentiations between positivism, post-

positivism and three distinct phenomenological positions. Positivism and post-positivism are linked with

the modernist tradition and phenomenological positions can be seen to incorporate differentiated levels of

postmodern approaches. However, these distinctions vary and can become opaque when closer inspection

is undertaken. For instance, ‘falsification’ and the distaste for grand theory apparent in post-positivism in

certain contexts render it postmodernist. Furthermore, distinctions between epistemological and ontological

positions are identified when one assesses differences between the philosophical positions of the main

phenomenological thinkers. Differences are apparent between Husserl's ‘transcendental phenomenology’,

Heidegger's ‘hermeneutical phenomenology’ and Merleau-Ponty's world of ‘inalienable presence’.

Phenomenology is not a single unified body of ideas and the tradition encompasses diverse interpretations

and philosophical positions (Giddens, 1977). In this text, the distinctions between these philosophical

positions are explored in an attempt to clarify some of the issues relating to ontology, epistemology and

methodology for distinct paradigms of inquiry.

In general, the critical theory paradigm included theoretical perspectives that challenged the status quo, for

example, neo-Marxism, feminism, determinism, and provided a specific understanding of reality in that it is

shaped by ‘social, political, cultural, economic and gender values crystalised over time’ (Denzin and Lincoln,

1994: 105) (critical theory is outlined further in Chapter 5).

Overall, this chapter outlines the relationship between a number of different paradigms of inquiry identified

by Denzin and Lincoln (1994, 2000, 2005). These involve: positivism, post-positivism, critical theory,

constructivism and participatory. In general terms the former two can come under the heading of positivism

whereas the latter three may be perceived as displaying elements of phenomenology. Each paradigm of

inquiry identifies specific methodological approaches and theoretical perspectives and indicates how these fit

together when underpinning research projects and programmes.