Theory Programs and Theoretical Problems

Abstract

Some sociologists argue that sociological theory does not grow and the reason why it does not grow is that the discipline lacks a core of highly developed, almost universally accepted, paradigms; even worse, because it is reflexive, its criteria of problem and theory choice are so noncognitive that there are no paradigms, hence no progress, in its future. We do not question that sociology lacks a core of almost universally accepted paradigms, nor that highly developed paradigms may be a sufficient condition of theory growth, but we question both that universal acceptance of them is necessary and that sociology has nothing like them. We argue that theoretical research programs-sets of strategies, sets of interrelated theories embodying these strategies, and empirical models interpreting these theories-are sufficient for theoretical growth. An examination of three theoretical research programs in this article shows that they perform some of the same functions for theory growth as, in Kuhn, are performed by paradigms. Sociology may lack a universally accepted core, but there are theoretical research programs in sociology, and therefore already there is theory growth if it is looked for in the right place. Nor is there any warrant for the view that because its criteria of problem and theory choice are inescapably noncognitive, there are no paradigms, hence no progress, in sociology's future. If that were true, not only would sociology lack paradigms, but also theoretical research programs. We conclude from our study that sociology need not wait on the emergence of a universally accepted core. It is sufficient for the growth of theory that it develops further its existing theoretical research programs and that it encourages the creation of new programs.

Building sociological knowledge within and across disciplinary boundaries: megalomania vs. modesty?

“…7. Here I disagree with Berger et al's positioning of (neo)institutionalism (polity model) exclusively among sociological ''theoretical research programmes'' (Berger et al 2005), for it is, like rational choice or path dependency, situated somewhere in between sociology, history, economics and political science. In any case, the theoretical language of neoinstitutionalism is evidently inter-and multidisciplinary and, of course, as such much less generous with theoretical generalizations.…”

Cultural omnivorousness and status inconsistency in Chile: the role of objective and subjective social status

“…Nevertheless, an important tradition in studies on status inconsistency argues that individuals often combine different resources of stratification in the explanation of their behavior (Berger, Rosenholtz, & Zelditch, 1980;Berger, Willer, & Zelditch, 2005;Schneider & Cook, 1995). The expectations of certain social groups based on different status characteristics possessed by actors, OSS and SSS in our context, are combined to form overall expectations for the individuals (Fişek, 1998).…”

El mito de la sociología como «ciencia multiparadigmática»

“…El auténtico pluralismo teórico, el que hace competir las teorías entre sí convirtiendo las disputas en algo decidible racionalmente, ha hecho avanzar en los últimos años campos de investigación tan importantes para la sociología como el estudio del capital social, de la acción colectiva, de las redes sociales, o de la movilidad y el estatus social, por citar sólo algunos (Aguiar, De Francisco y Noguera, 2009;Berger et al, 2005;Goldthorpe, 2007b;Noguera, 2006). En cambio, el pseudo-pluralismo teórico tiene su tragicómico reverso en la futilidad de los omnipresentes (y frecuentemente abstrusos) intentos de «superación de dicotomías teóricas», que a la postre acaban dejándolo todo igual, excepto por la creación de una corte de comentaristas, exégetas y críticos amigables.…”