Aspects of Concept Formation, Explication, and Theory Construction in Sociology

Abstract

CONCEPTS Many concepts in sociology cannot be evaluated on this basis, however, because they do not operate within the context of a formal theory, be it a theory sketch or an explicit theory. For those of us concerned not only with evaluation, but also with theory construction, the question is whether or not there is any basis for giving special attention to some of these isolated concepts in sociology. Before attempting to answer this question, it might prove fruitful to review critically the present state of such concepts, which we shall label isolated abstract concepts. The most characteristic feature of such concepts is that they tend to be ambiguous. . . . the use of empirically meaningless terms makes it impossible even roughly to indicate the type of investigation that would have a bearing upon those formulations and that might lead to evidence either confirming or infirming the suggested explanations. Ibid., pp. 465-466. For a recent discussion of what might be entailed in filling out an explanation sketch, see Fred Newman, Discussion: Explanation Sketches, Philosophy of Science, 32 (1965), pp. 168-172. 14 There are several scientifically acceptable theory sketches in sociology, as distinguished from pseudo-theory sketches. Homans' theory of elementary social behavior and Gibbs and Martin's theory of status integration are representative examples. George Homans, Social behavior: Its Elementary Forms, New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1961; and Jack P. Gibbs and Walter T. Martin, Integration and Suicide: Sociological Study, Eugene: University of Oregon Books, 1964. The most important feature of scientifically acceptable theory sketches is that their propositions are, in principle, testable. Their major weakness lies in the imprecision of definitions and empirical indicators. For example, in Homans theory of elementary social behavior, the value of a unit is vaguely defined as the degree of reinforcement or punishment one receives from that unit. Moreover, Homans states that value is measured by studying the past history of an individual in relation to his present circumstances. Such a measure takes account of the two components of value: amount of past reward and present need. Homans readily admits that these components are not very precise, and that the propositions in which the term functions are necessarily imprecise. 15 For an example of this weakness with reference to Gibbs and Martin's theory sketch of status integration (cited in footnote 14), see Robert Hagedorn and Sanford Labovitz, A Note on Integration and Suicide, Social Problems, 14 (1966), pp. 79-84. Commenting on the theory of status integration, Hagedorn and Labovitz have stated: A major problem with the theory is the lack of congruence between the theoretical conception of status integration and its operational measurement. As indicated by examples cited, actual occupancy of a status configuration (which is the empirical referent of status integration) does not always reflect incompatibility or role conflict. P. 84. An interesting exchange on other methodological issues concerning the theory of status integration and suicide was provided by William J. Chambliss and Marion F. Steel, Status Integration and Suicide: An Assessment, American Sociological Review, 31 (1966), pp. 524-532; and Jack P. Gibbs and Walter T. Martin, On Assessing the Theory of Integration and Suicide, Ibid., pp. 533-641. This content downloaded from 157.55.39.243 on Thu, 06 Oct 2016 04:44:34 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms CONCEPT FORMATION, EXPLICATION AND THEORY 989