The Role Of Theory In Research – Prof. Brian Van Wyk Postgra

The Role Of Theory In Researchprof Brian Van Wykpostgraduate Enrolment

The role of theory in research Prof Brian van Wyk POSTGRADUATE ENROLMENT AND THROUGHPUT (PET) Outline for workshop What is theory? Characteristics of theory Functions of theory in research How to evaluate the quality of a theory (explanation) Theory in research OR research and theory? What is theory? A model or framework for observation and understanding shapes both what we see and how we see it; allows the researcher to make links between the abstract and the concrete, the theoretical and the empirical, thought statements and observational statements. Generalising statements that assert a connection between two or more types of phenomena Explains and predicts the relationship between variables A system of interconnected abstractions or ideas that condenses and organises knowledge about the world * Characteristics of theory Theory guides research and organises its ideas. i.e. bricks lying around haphazardly in the brickyard: ‘facts’ of different shapes and sizes have no meaning unless they are drawn together in a theoretical or conceptual framework.

Empirically relevant Always tentative, never proven Becomes stronger as more supporting evidence is gathered; provides a context for predictions Has the capacity to generate new research. Theory vs. hypothesis An hypothesis is an educated guess. It usually predicts the relationship between two or more variables. Hypotheses are more specific than theories. Multiple hypotheses may relate to one theory. Remember theory can operate on different levels Micro-level theory seeks to explain behaviour at the level of the individual or family environment e.g. psychology – Frustration-Aggression hypothesis or Sternberg’s theory of love Meso-level theory seeks to explain the interactions of micro-level organisms e.g. social institutions, organisations, communities Macro-level theory seeks to explain behaviour at the level of large groups of people e.g. ethnicity, class, gender – Conflict Theory How to evaluate a theory Is the theory or explanation logical and coherent? Is it clear and parsimonious? Does it fit the available data? Does it provide testable claims? Have theory-based predictions been tested and supported? Has it survived numerous attempts by researchers to identify problems with it or to falsify it? Does it work better than competing or rival theories or explanations? Is it general enough to apply to more than one place, situation, or person? Can practitioners use it to control or influence things in the world a good theory of teaching helps teachers to positively influence student learning; a good theory of counseling helps counselors to positively influence their clients’ mental health Theory and research OR theory in research? There is a two-way relationship between theory and research. Social theory informs our understanding of issues, which, in turn, assists us in making research decisions and making sense of the world. The experience of doing research and its findings also influences our theorising. Deductive theory Empirical results affect the way theory is expanded and altered. In a deductive approach, researchers use theory to guide the design of a study and the interpretation of results. As researchers continue to conduct empirical research in testing a theory, they develop confidence that some parts of it are true. Researchers may modify some propositions of a theory or reject them if several well-conducted studies have negative findings. Inductive theory Inductive theorising begins with a few assumptions and broad orienting concepts. Theory develops from the ground up as the researchers gather and analyse the data. Theory emerges slowly, concept by concept, and proposition by proposition, in a specific area. Over time, the concepts and empirical generalisations emerge and mature. Soon, relationships become visible and researchers weave knowledge from different studies into more abstract theory. Home Task Formulate your key research question: what are you ultimately trying to answer? What are some of the sub-questions to this bigger question? Attempt to provide a response or explanation for your bigger research question as well as the sub-questions. Think about what it is that you are drawing on in developing these responses. Develop a list of factors that have influenced your response. Ask your partner to ‘critique’ and point out any assumptions in your response. Do you need to research any of these assumptions before you can proceed with addressing your research question? What level of explanation do you think will be most appropriate for researching your topic? (micro, meso, macro) Will you be trying to explain causal links? Or people’s own meanings (phenomenological)? Or historical developments? Have you read any books or journal articles which could support and help you to develop your argument? If so, which? Were these authors working in similar or different contexts to you? Are there any theorists who refute your arguments or take a different perspective? If so, who? Do they work in similar or different contexts to you? * Levels of Theory Level Focus How They Are Used Metatheory These are the theories that deal with the nature of knowledge or the nature of reality. They are really more “world views†that theories in most senses of the term. They inform your stance about what it is possible to know and about how you go about doing research. For example, as a scientific realist, I would argue that human ideas are “real,†just as “real†as “real†as trees and such. However, I would also argue that not all human ideas are worthy of equal attention – that not “each and every reality†is equally valid or important. They become important, when they are translated into action or event. Hitler’s ideas were “weird†in my book, and would have been completely uninteresting to me had the social conditions in which he existed not caused them to be “turned into historical events. Grand These theories are concerned with the “broad sweep†of human society, with how human social structures and processes in general “work†or evolve. I think of them more as “theoretical stance†or “theoretical perspective†than “working theory.†Early social theorists developed most of these – Marx, Durkheim, DuBois – as they struggled to understand “society.†So did early biological theorists like Darwin. These grand theories are not very useful for the kind of research that you will want to do. We may never be able to decide whether Marx or Weber was “right†about what they thought were the key driving forces in the development of society. However, most of us do draw on their ideas every day and their original key constructs (like race, class, social networks) remain the cornerstones of most social science, just as “selection†remains a key for biology. Between them, six or seven major theoretical perspectives have contributed enormously to much of social theory. Mid-Range These theories deal with specific aspects of human behavior – like conflict or social networking. They do NOT deal with a specific topic (like drinking). There is no theory of drinking; there are several theories of risk-taking behavior or of personality disorders, all of which could be applied to understand why people binge drink. These are the theories that we use in the vast majority of social (or biological or physical) research. Most of them in the social sciences grew out of the grand theories. For example, Simmel introduced the concept of social networks. Later theorists took this idea and developed a whole set of theories called “exchange theory†that explored the role of social exchange as a fundamental component of human interaction. These are still “pretty grand†theories, but individual researchers apply these ideas to specific problems, topics or situations. You need a mid-range theory for your work this semester. Micro These may not be “theories†in the usual sense of the term because they focus on understanding or explaining the processes or phenomena that occur under a specific set of conditions (in one place, with one group of people). Micro-theories focus on explaining what happened at this place, with these people, at this time – not offering general explanations. Often, these theories arise because we see something that our existing theories simply cannot explain. We develop a micro-theory – sort of a disconnected piece of a theory in many cases – to describe what we have observed. Over time, research may show that our “piece of a theory†or micro-theory fits into other theories, or we “add pieces†and end up with a new model or theory.

Paper For Above instruction

Theory plays a fundamental role in the development and progression of research across various disciplines. It provides a conceptual framework that guides the researcher in observing, analyzing, and understanding phenomena, as well as in making predictions about future occurrences. In research, theories serve as maps that organize knowledge, allowing researchers to link abstract ideas with empirical observations. They assist in explaining relationships between variables, predicting outcomes, and generating new lines of inquiry, thereby enhancing the depth and scope of scientific understanding.

Characteristics of a robust theory include guidance for research, the ability to organize diverse facts into a coherent framework, and empirical relevance. A good theory must be tentative—meaning it is open to modification as new evidence emerges—and must provide a clear and parsimonious explanation of phenomena. It should also fit existing data and produce testable predictions. The capacity for a theory to withstand falsification attempts and to outperform competing theories is crucial, especially in establishing its validity. Furthermore, effective theories are generalizable beyond specific contexts, enabling practitioners to apply them practically—for example, in education or counseling—to influence outcomes positively.

The distinction between theories and hypotheses is essential in research methodology. While hypotheses are specific, testable predictions about relationships between variables, theories are broader frameworks that encompass multiple hypotheses. Theories can operate at different analytical levels: micro-level theories focus on individual or family behavior, meso-level theories explore interactions within organizations or communities, and macro-level theories deal with large social structures such as ethnicity, class, and gender. Understanding these levels is critical for selecting the appropriate theoretical lens for research.

Evaluating a theory involves assessing its logical coherence, fit with existing data, and its capacity for testing through empirical research. A strong theory should be clear, parsimonious, and supported by evidence, with predictions that have been tested and validated repeatedly. Its applicability across different contexts further indicates its robustness. The practicality of a theory is also judged by its ability to guide intervention—such as improving educational methods or counseling techniques—making it valuable in applied settings.

Importantly, the relationship between theory and research is bidirectional. Social theory informs our understanding of phenomena, guiding research decisions, while empirical findings from research serve to refine, expand, or refute existing theories. In a deductive approach, theories guide the design of studies, and researchers seek to confirm or disconfirm propositions through empirical testing. Conversely, inductive theorising begins with data, from which theories emerge over time, allowing a bottom-up development of understanding.

When conceptualizing research questions, it is vital to consider the level of explanation—micro, meso, or macro—and whether to focus on causal links, subjective meanings, or historical developments. Formulating clear questions and supportive sub-questions, while being aware of underlying assumptions and relevant literature, helps build a solid theoretical foundation. Incorporating different levels of theory — from grand theories about societal structures to micro theories explaining individual behavior — enhances the depth and explanatory power of research.

References

• Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research Methods. Oxford University Press.
• Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage Publications.
• Gerring, J. (2012). Social Science Methodology: A Unified Framework. Cambridge University Press.
• Huntington, S. P. (1993). The Clash of Civilizations? Foreign Affairs, 72(3), 22–49.
• Klein, J. T. (2010). A taxonomy of dominant research orientations. In Strategizing for the Digital World (pp. 85-108). Emerald Group Publishing.
• Robson, C., & McCartan, K. (2016). Real World Research. Wiley.
• Silverman, D. (2013). Doing Qualitative Research. Sage Publications.
• Standard, D., & Byrne, D. (2014). The Role of Theory in Qualitative Research. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 43(1), 69–97.
• Van Wyk, B. (2020). The Role of Theory in Social Research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 23(4), 341–355.
• Weber, M. (1949). The Methodology of the Social Sciences. Free Press.