UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

SRI VENKATESWARA COLLEGE

Name: Ishita Singh

Roll Number: 0822012
Course: B.A (Hons) Sociology
Semester: I
Title of the Paper: Introduction to Sociological Research
Question: Explain the bearing of sociological theory on empirical research.

In recent history, sociological theory alternates between two contrasting emphases. One group of
sociologists seeks to generalise, and formulate sociological laws. Their philosophy seems to
indicate that they want their work to be significant whether or not it's true. While there is another
group who report verifiable facts but they are unable to relate these facts with one another or
even explain why things happen the way they happen.
Sociological theory has been widely used to refer to the products of several related but distinct
activities carried on by members of a professional group called sociologists. These activities,
often lumped together as sociological theory, should be distinguished. They include: (1)
methodology; (2) general sociological orientations; (3) analysis of sociological concepts; (4) post
factum sociological interpretations; (5) empirical generalisations in sociology and (6)
sociological theory.

Methodology refers to the logic of scientific procedure. It is about knowing how to test a battery
of hypotheses. There is greater concern with methodology than theory. Methodological writings
imply the perspective of emerging disciplines. Appropriate methodological demands would help
reduce the gap between methodological aspiration and actual sociological attainment.

General sociological orientations involve broad postulates which indicate types of variables
which are somehow to be taken into account rather than specifying determinate relationships
between particular variables. They provide the broadest framework for empirical inquiry. For
instance- “Durkheim's generic hypothesis, which holds that the "determining cause of a social
fact should be sought among the social facts preceding it" and identifies the "social" factor as
institutional norms toward which behavior is oriented” (Merton, 1972, Pp. 142) Simply put,
investigators often ignore the order of facts and do not set specific hypothesis. The chief function
of these orientations is to provide a general context for inquiry. “To take a case in point:
Malinowski was led to re-examine the Freudian notion of the Oedipus complex on the basis of a
general sociological orientation, which viewed sentiment formation as patterned by social
structure. The specific hypotheses which he utilized in this inquiry were all congruent with the
generic orientation but were not prescribed by it” (ibid.)
This tells us that general orientations indicate the relevance of some structural variables but the
task of sorting through particular variables still remains. The general outlooks have an inclusive
and profound effect and it is the task of the theorists to develop specific, interrelated hypotheses
by reformulating empirical generalizations in the light of these. The contribution of socio theory
to other disciplines lies in the realm of such orientations. “Social scientists have been led to
detect sociological gaps in the application of their theory to concrete social behaviour.” (Merton,
1972, Pp. 143)

It is a commonly held belief that theory is comprised of concepts, but it is an incomplete

assertion. Conceptual analysis is confined to the specification and clarification of key concepts.
While it is an indispensable phase of theoretic work, an array of concepts- status, role,
gemeinschaft- does not constitute theory. Only when these concepts are interrelated in the form
of a scheme does a theory begin to emerge. The choice of concepts guiding the collection and
analysis of data is crucial to empirical inquiry. A function of conceptual clarification is to give a
clear cut idea of the character of data under a particular concept. It provides for a reconstruction
of data which leads to liquidation of hypotheses set up to account for bogus data by questioning
the assumption on which the initial data was based. Conceptual analysis may also resolve
antinomies in empirical findings by indicating that contradictions are more apparent than real. It
functions to maximise the likelihood of the comparability. The concept often defines the
situation, and the research workers respond in accordance to it. Conceptual language tends to fix
our perceptions and derivatively, our thought and behaviour. Yet people can break out of this
framework and create a new one in accordance with the situation. Governing concepts often lag
behind behavioural requirements. This ineptness of concept to situation often evokes self
correcting and more appropriate formulations. The task remains to identify the conceptual lag
and to deviate from the patterns of cognitive misbehaviour produced by the lag. Another job of
conceptual analysis is to institute observable indicators of the social data concerned with the
empirical research. “ Conceptual analysis thus enters as one basis for an initial and periodic
critical appraisal of the extent to which assumed signs and symbols are an adequate index of the
social substratum.” (Merton, 1972, Pp. 147)

Post factum sociological interpretation or the situation where observations are at hand and are
subsequently interpreted has the logical structure of clinical inquiry. The defining characteristic
of this is the fact that instead of empirical testing of predesignated hypotheses, interpretation is
introduced after the observations have already been made. “The implicit assumption is that a
body of generalized propositions has been so fully established that it can be approximately
applied to the data in hand.” (ibid.) Post factum explanations in short, are designed to explain a
previously observed phenomenon. For the most part, “the post factum hypotheses are also ad hoc
or, at the least, have but a slight degree of prior confirmation, then such "precocious
explanations," as H. S. Sullivan called them, produce a spurious sense of adequacy at the
expense of instigating further inquiry.” (ibid.)
Such explanations cannot be considered ‘compelling evidence’ but plausible. Plausibility is
found when an interpretation is consistent with one set of data. It rests in the consistency
between the interpretation and data. The absence of compelling evidence stems from a failure to
provide distinctive interpretations apart from their consistency with the initial data. This implies
that alternative interpretations equally consistent with these data have not been systematically
explored but may exist. Thus, post factum explanations are flexible and don't lend themselves to
nullifiability. “Thus, whatever the observations, a new interpretation can be found to "fit the
facts." (Merton, 1972, Pp. 148)

There are two types of statements of sociological uniformity which differ in their bearing on
theory. The first one refers to empirical generalisation which is an isolated proposition
summarising observed uniformities of relationships between two or more variables. There is an
abundance of such generalisations in sociological literature which have not been assimilated to
sociological theory. While such generalisations are a crucial aspect of empirical research, they
only provide the raw material for sociology as a discipline. “the orientation of empirical research
toward theory, first begins when the bearing of such uniformities on a set of interrelated
propositions is tentatively established.” (Merton, 1972, Pp. 149)

“The second type of sociological generalization, the so-called scientific law, differs from the
foregoing in as much as it is a statement of in-variance derivable from a theory.” (Merton, 1972,
Pp. 150) The scarcity of such laws in the sociological literature is a clear indicator of the
bifurcation between theory and empirical research. Investigators often discuss the logical criteria
of sociological laws without being able to cite a single instance that fully satisfies these criteria.
Such approximations are not ideal. It may be useful to examine a familiar case in which such
genralisations were incorporated into a body of theory.

To further understand we can take an example from durkheim’s work. it has long been
established as a statistical uniformity that in a variety of populations, Catholics have a lower
suicide rate than Protestants through his observations. This case helps to locate the empirical
generalisations with respect to theory as well as make clear certain functions of theory. It
indicates that theoretical applicability appears in empirical generalisations when they are
conceptualised in abstractions of higher order. Thus, the scope of the empirical findings is
extended and certain dissimilar uniformities are interrelated. The next step is the cumulation of
both- theory and research findings. This is a major function of systematic theory. “The
conversion of empirical uniformities into theoretic statements thus increases the fruitfulness of
research through the successive exploration of implications.” (Merton, 1972, Pp. 152)
The theory provides a ground for prediction which happens to be a lot more secure than
empirical extrapolation. In order to be productive, a theory must be sufficiently precise to be
determinate. Precision is an essential element of the criterion of testability. Thus the pressure
towards the use of statistical data in sociology is justifiable for it provides for precision in
disciplined inquiry. “precise predictions and data serve to reduce the empirical bearing upon
research of the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.” (ibid.) precision enhances the
likelihood of approximating a crucial observation. The internal coherence of a theory has a
similar consequence. The integrated theory sustains a larger measure of confirmation than any
distinct, unrelated hypotheses. It should also be noted that pressures towards precision and
logical coherence can lead to unproductive activity. Focusing solely on precision may sterilize
imaginative hypothesis. Thus care must be taken that significant problems aren't forgotten.

There is a need for a closer connection between theory and empirical research. “The prevail-ing
division of the two is manifested in marked discontinuities of empirical research, on the one
hand, and systematic theorizing unsustained by empirical test, on the other.”(p 153) it is
commonly believed that continuity can only be achieved if empirical studies are theory oriented
and if theory is empirically confirmable. But certain conventions of sociological research such
as- ‘ formalised derivation’ and “codification” may facilitate this process. Hypotheses and, if
possible, theoretic grounds should be explicitly stated. Attention should be paid to the
introduction of interpretive variables other than those in the original formulation of the
hypotheses. New post factum interpretation, which will inevitable arise, should be declared. The
conclusions of the research should include not only a statement of the findings with respect to the
initial hypotheses but an indication of the order of observations needed to test the further
implications of the investigation. Such formalisation serves to control the introduction of
unrelated, undisciplined, and diffuse interpretations. It also prepares way for consecutive and
cumulative research. Codification (termed by lazarus-feld) seeks to systematize available
empirical generalizations in apparently different spheres of behavior. A codified formulation
gives rise to theoretic problems which would be readily overlooked if the several empirical
findings were not re-examined within a single context. “It is submitted that codification, as a
procedure complementing the formal derivation of hypotheses to be tested, will facilitate the
codevelopment of viable sociological theory and pertinent empirical research.” (Merton, 1972,
Pp. 155)