Module Detail and its Structure

Subject Name Sociology

Paper Name Methodology of Research in Sociology

Module Name/Title
Components of Social Research: Theory, Logic, and Method

Module Id RMS 02
Pre-requisites Some elementary knowledge of sociological theory and research

Objectives To introduce learner to the basic components of social research.

Keywords Theory, Logic, Method, Paradigm, Hypothesis, Ontology, Epistemology,

Reasoning, Triangulation

Development Team

Role in Content Name Affiliation

Development
Principal Investigator Prof. Sujata Patel Dept. of Sociology,
University of Hyderabad
Paper Coordinator Prof. Biswajit Ghosh Professor, Department of Sociology, The
University of Burdwan, Burdwan 713104
Email: [email protected]
Ph. M +91 9002769014
Content Writer Prof. N. Jayaram Formerly Professor, Centre for Research
Methodology, Tata Institute of Social
Sciences, Mumbai
Email: [email protected]
Ph. M +91 9535766565
Content Reviewer (CR) Prof. Biswajit Ghosh Professor, Department of Sociology, The
& Language Editor University of Burdwan, Burdwan 713104
 2

Contents

1. Objective…………………………………………………………………………………………...3
2. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………...3
3. Learning Outcome………………………………………………………………………………....3
4. Definition of Research……………………………………………………………………………..3
5. Research Problem …………………………………………………………………………………4
Self-Check Exercise 1……………………………………………………………………………...4
6. The Three Components of Social Research……………………………………………………….5
Component 1: Theory…………………………………………………………………………………6
7. Meaning and Types of Theory……………………………………………………………………..6
8. Theory as Embodying Assumptions……………………………………………………………….6
9. Paradigm and Paradigm Shift……………………………………………………………………...7
10. Assumptions and Hypothesis………………………………………………………………………7
11. Ontology and Epistemology……………………………………………………………………….8
11.1 Ontology: Objectivism and Constructivism………………………………………………….8
11.2 Epistemology: Positivism and Interpretivism………………………………………………..9
Self-check Exercise- 2…………………………………………………………………………….10

Component 2: Logic………………………………………………………………………………….11

12. Deductive Reasoning……………………………………………………………………………..11

13. Inductive Reasoning………………………………………………………………………………11
14. Abductive Reasoning……………………………………………………………………………..12

Component 3: Method………………………………………………………………………………..12

15. Methods and Data ………………………………………………………………………………..12

16. Triangulation ……………………………………………………………………………………..14
Self-Check Exercise 3……………………………………………………………………….........14
17. Summary………………………………………………………………………………………….15
Notes……………………………………………………………………………………………...15

Name of Paper: Methodology of Research in Sociology

Sociology Name of Module: Components of Social Research: Theory, Logic,
and Method
 3

1. Objective

In this module you will learn about the three components of social research, namely, theory, logic, and
method. Each of these components is discussed separately and the relationship of each component with
the other two is analysed. This module explains to you how the methodology of social research is more
than mere application of methods.

2. Introduction

Scientific knowledge is not only distinguished from all other forms of knowledge, but it is also the most
privileged form of knowledge. Its claim for this privileged status is based on the fact that the conclusions
of science, unlike common-sense beliefs and religious dogmas, are the outcome of research. Research in
science, as also in social sciences, including sociology, involves the application of institutionalised
principles, procedures, and techniques of acquiring new knowledge as also for refining existing
knowledge. Popularly, this is called the scientific method. The rigour with which a discipline practises
scientific method depends on (a) the nature of the subject matter that it studies, and (b) the methods and
techniques that are used for studying it.

In this context, a distinction is often made between natural sciences and social sciences. The natural
sciences, for various reasons, have made rapid strides and great advances in generating reliable
knowledge about several aspects of the physical and the organic world we inhabit. The social sciences,
again for various reasons, have not been as successful in generating reliable knowledge about the various
aspects of the social world we inhabit. Not surprisingly, therefore, the practitioners of natural sciences
claim superior status for the knowledge they generate vis-à-vis that generated by their counterparts in the
social sciences; some even deny scientific status to social sciences. Be that as it may, what is common to
both natural sciences and social sciences is their acceptance of research as the pathway to reliable
knowledge.

3. Learning Outcome
This module would acquaint you with the three major components of social research, namely, theory,
logic, and method. As these components are intricately linked to each other, you would also learn about
their relationship. By doing so, this module would make your understanding of theory, logic and methods
and techniques of collecting data as also analysing them more concrete and deep.

4. Definition of Research
There are many definitions of research. Tracing the origin of the word ‘research’ to 16 th century France,
the Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines research as ‘the systematic investigation into and study of
materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions’ (Soanes and Stevenson 2004:
1222). This noun usage of the term emphasises the nature (‘systematic’) and objective (‘to establish facts
and reach new conclusions’) of the activity called research. This terse definition is, no doubt, too general
and, as a consequence, many an activity that is systematic is described as ‘research’. If we shift our
attention to what natural scientists and social scientists do when they engage in an activity called research,
we arrive at a better understanding of that term.

Name of Paper: Methodology of Research in Sociology

Sociology Name of Module: Components of Social Research: Theory, Logic,
and Method
 4

In simple terms, research may be defined as an activity that consists of two interrelated activities, namely,
(i) asking questions and (ii) attempting to answer them. The attempt at answering questions does not
mean that the researcher will eventually find a satisfactory answer. It is likely that the researcher may end
up with more questions about the phenomenon than he/she had set out to answer. This must not be viewed
as a negative reflection of the way the research was conducted; rather, it is a valuable contribution to the
discipline(s), as questions direct the practitioners of the discipline(s) to hitherto unknown aspects of the
phenomenon in question. After all, questioning is the driving force of any science.

5. Research Problem

Thus, asking meaningful questions (that is, formulation of the research problem) is the fundamental step
which determines how the researcher goes about studying a phenomenon and the eventual usefulness of
her/his findings. Intellectual curiosity (that is, the desire to gain knowledge for its own sake), practicality
(that is, the urgency to solve a problem), and intrinsic orderliness (that is, observation of a regularity of
pattern) of a phenomenon may motivate a researcher to ask questions. Personal experience, state of
knowledge on the subject of research, social premiums (that is, ‘hotness’ of a topic and availability of
money for researching it), everyday life and personal values of the researcher may also play an important
role in the selection of the research problem (see Neuman 1994: 110).

‘A problem well put’, as the aphorism goes, ‘is half solved’. However, there is no formal recipe for the
formulation of a research problem. Systematic immersion in the subject matter and training in the art and
craft of interrogating the existing stock of knowledge about a phenomenon will help the researcher in this
(see Greer 1977).

What are the characteristics of ‘good’ researcher questions? According to Keith F. Punch, ‘good’ research
questions are:

Clear: They can be easily understood, and are unambiguous.

Specific: Their concepts are at a specific enough level to connect to data indicators.
Answerable: We can see what data are required to answer them, and how the data will be
obtained.
Interconnected: They are related to each other in some meaningful way, rather than being
unconnected.
Substantively relevant: They are interesting and worthwhile questions for the investment of
research efforts (1996: 49).

Self Check Exercise 1:

1. What is a scientific method?

Scientific method involves the application of institutionalised principles, procedures, and techniques of
acquiring new knowledge as also for refining existing knowledge. Unlike common-sense beliefs and
religious dogmas, scientific method relies on clearly defined theory, logic and methods to study a
problem.

Name of Paper: Methodology of Research in Sociology

Sociology Name of Module: Components of Social Research: Theory, Logic,
and Method
 5

2. What is common among natural and social sciences?

Despite the fact that the practitioners of natural sciences claim superior status for the knowledge they
generate vis-à-vis that generated by their counterparts in the social sciences, both accept research as
the pathway to reliable knowledge. In other words, both are involved in asking questions and
answering them. Questioning is the driving force of any science.

3. How does a researcher formulate her/his research problem?

There is no formal recipe for the formulation of a research problem. Systematic immersion in the
subject matter and training in the art and craft of interrogating the existing stock of knowledge about a
phenomenon will help the researcher in this. On the whole, Intellectual curiosity, practicality, and
intrinsic orderliness of a phenomenon may motivate a researcher to ask questions. Personal
experience, state of knowledge on the subject of research, social premiums, everyday life and personal
values of the researcher may also play an important role in the selection of the research problem.

6. The Three Components of Social Research

Be it in the natural sciences or in the social sciences, the questions we ask about the world do not
suddenly appear out of the blue. Rather, our questions only arise within the context of general
interpretations of what the world is or, what John A. Hughes (1976) calls, our ‘meaning systems’.
Different models of reality will lead to different propositions about what reality is, and so different ways
of establishing what can be accepted as real, different ways of justifying the data relevant to reality, and
different strategies for collecting such data. These aspects of research and understanding are built into all
meaning systems. They can be broadly discussed as three components of social research, namely, theory,
logic, and methods.

In actual research, these three components of social research are interrelated; each one of them is
implicated in the other. The nature of their relationship is reciprocal, as shown in Figure 1. Theory has a
bearing on logic and method; logic, on theory and method; method, on theory and logic; and each one is,
in turn, influenced by the other two. Thus, they can be discussed in isolation of the other two only for
analytical convenience.

Figure 1: Theory, Logic, and Method

Theory

Logic Method

Name of Paper: Methodology of Research in Sociology

Sociology Name of Module: Components of Social Research: Theory, Logic,
and Method
 6

Such an isolated discussion of any one component may clarify its dimensions as well as nuances.
However, they are best discussed in a sequence, and the sequence that is appropriate is theory, logic, and
method. This is because theory is implicated in and independently influences both logic and method more
distinctly than the other way round.

Component 1: Theory
7. Meaning and Types of Theory

The term ‘theory’ is one of the most amorphous, misused, and misleading terms in the vocabulary of
social scientists. It has a range of meanings: it is used broadly to encompass all thought and narrowly to
refer to a single thought. It has been applied to thinking process per se or only to its results and
conclusions. It may vary from complete conjecture to solid confirmation; from an unarticulated
impression to a precisely defined prediction. Percy S. Cohen compares the term ‘theory’ to a ‘blank
cheque’: ‘its potential value depends on the user and his use of it’ (1968: 1).

According to Robert K. Merton, the term theory refers to ‘logically interconnected sets of propositions
from which empirical uniformities can be derived’ (1968: 39). Given the imponderable complexity of
socio-cultural reality, sociologists, as most other social scientists, have developed innumerable theories.
Sociology, accordingly, has been described as a multiple paradigm science’ (Ritzer 1975) or being in a
‘multi-paradigmatic stage’ (Bryant 1976: 15). Of course, not all theories in sociology have the same
analytical status; they differ in terms of such attributes as generality, precision, testability, elegance,
predictive power, and the nature of their postulates. In terms of their generality, scholars like Merton have
tried to place sociological theories on a continuum: from ‘general theories of social systems’ at one end
to ‘detailed orderly descriptions of particulars that are not generalized at all’, ‘middle-range theory’ being
intermediate to these (Merton 1968: 39; emphasis added).

Sociological theories can be and have been classified in many ways. For the discussion on the nature of
theory as a component of research and its relation to other two components, namely, logic and method, it
is appropriate to distinguish between ‘substantive theories’ and ‘general theoretical orientations’.
Substantive theories deal with particular aspects or spheres of social phenomena. Thus, we come across
theories of crime and delinquency, child development, fertility transition, migration, poverty,
stratification, suicide, and so on. Overarching these theories are the general theoretical orientations which
define the methodological perspective or approach to social phenomena. These are often described as
paradigms of sociological inquiry. It is in the latter sense of theoretical orientations briefing sociological
inquiry that the relationship between theory, on the one hand, and logic and method on the other are
delineated in this module.

8. Theory as Embodying Assumptions

Underlying all research, and therefore, all knowledge, are assumptions. Assumptions are propositions that
are accepted as true without proof. They are the basis on which we start the process of acquisition of
knowledge about anything; they are also the basis on which we accept or reject knowledge about a given
thing. Scientifically speaking, assumptions are by themselves neither true nor false. Propositions in the
form of assumptions cannot be tested for their truth content. They are accepted or rejected based on their
capacity to explain observed things or reality.

Name of Paper: Methodology of Research in Sociology

Sociology Name of Module: Components of Social Research: Theory, Logic,
and Method
 7

If the assumptions have to do with knowledge in which faith is primary, then such assumptions will be
believed to be true, notwithstanding any evidence to the contrary. The ‘theory of creation’ in founded
religions, as a body of knowledge, which rests on belief, is an apt illustration of this. On the other hand, if
the assumptions have to do with knowledge in which doubt is primary, then such assumptions will be
discarded if they repeatedly fail to explain a given phenomenon, or an alternative set of assumptions
explain that phenomenon more convincingly. The ‘theory of evolution in biology’, as a body of
knowledge, which rests on doubt, is an apt illustration of this.

Even in science, often no set of assumptions convincingly explains all instances of a given phenomenon.
In such a situation, plurality of assumptions may persist for a long time, even if some of them contradict
each other. For example, in physics, there are plurality of assumptions to explain the phenomenon of
light; hence plurality of theories of light. In view of the nature and complexity of social reality, in
sociology and other social sciences, plurality of assumptions is the norm and well accepted. It is for this
reason, sociology, as noted earlier, is often described as a multi-paradigmatic discipline.

9. Paradigm and Paradigm Shift

In its sociological use, the term paradigm derives from the work of the well-known philosopher of
science, Thomas Samuel Kuhn (1922–1996). Writing on the nature of scientific knowledge in his book
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1970), Kuhn argued that scientists work within paradigms.
Paradigms are general ways of seeing the world (assumptions) which point to the nature of scientific work
to be done and the kinds of theory that are acceptable. These paradigms provide what Kuhn calls ‘normal
science’ (ibid.: 10), the kind of science pursued routinely. Over a time, normal science produces
anomalies which cannot be resolved within the paradigm. Then, the given paradigm is replaced by a new
one, leading to a new period of normal science, often expressed as ‘paradigm shift’. In sociology, as with
many other scientific terms, the term paradigm is used vaguely. It denotes, ‘schools of sociological work
or meta-theories, each of which is relatively self-contained, with its own methods and theories’
(Abercrombie et al.2000: 253).

10. Assumptions and Hypothesis

Assumptions are often confused with hypotheses (singular, hypothesis). Assumptions, to reiterate, are
never tested empirically; they are, therefore, never accepted or rejected based on empirical evidence.
Hypothesis, on the other hand, is a tentative answer to the research question. In other words, it is a
proposition or set of propositions put forward for empirical testing; it is accepted or rejected based on
empirical test. Often, hypotheses are derived from assumptions. Thus, the strength of an assumption lies
in its capacity (a) to generate testable hypotheses and (b) to explain observations made or results arrived
at.

A mere rejection of one hypothesis does not automatically result in the rejection of the assumption from
which it is derived. However, if repeatedly hypotheses derived from an assumption are rejected, or if the
assumption does not adequately explain the observations made or results arrived at, then it is bound to be
discarded.

Name of Paper: Methodology of Research in Sociology

Sociology Name of Module: Components of Social Research: Theory, Logic,
and Method
 8

11. Ontology and Epistemology

In doing research, we make two sets of assumptions. The first set of assumptions is about the nature of
reality that exists, or we believe exists. It is concerned with how we define the subject matter of our
discipline or the particular object of our research. These assumptions are called ontological assumptions.
The second set of assumptions is about the nature of knowledge about what exists or is believed to exist.
It is concerned with the type of knowledge that is possible to acquire about the subject matter of our
discipline or the particular object of our research. These assumptions are called epistemological
assumptions. Briefly stated, ontological assumptions have to do with reality and the epistemological
assumptions have to do with knowledge about that reality. Obviously, these two sets of assumptions are
intrinsically related.

11.1 Ontology: Objectivism and Constructivism

In sociology, broadly, there are two contrasting ontological positions: objectivism and constructivism.
Objectivism assumes that reality has an existence independently of the human beings living it and the
sociologist studying it. That is, reality has an objective existence. Thus, it is possible for us to acquire
objective knowledge about it. Sociologist, no doubt, is essentially a subjective creature, with her/his own
values and biases. Hence, the emphasis on objectivity in research requires two things: first, a belief that it
is possible to acquire such knowledge, and second, we must separate values from facts.

In this context, one is reminded of Émile Durkheim’s (1858–1917) ‘first and most fundamental rule’ of
sociological method: ‘Consider social facts as things’ (1966: 14; emphasis original). Durkheim
elaborated this rule by highlighting its three corollaries as follows:
i. All preconceptions must be eradicated.
ii. The subject matter of every sociological study should comprise a group of phenomena defined in
advance by certain common external characteristics, and all phenomena so defined should be
included within this group.
iii. When … the sociologist undertakes the investigation of some order of social facts, he must
endeavour to consider them from an aspect that is independent of their individual manifestations
(ibid.: 31, 35, 45).
How rigorously can a sociologist adhere to these rules in the study of social reality and what compromises
he or she makes is a different issue.

Constructivism, on the other hand, believes that human beings are meaning-making individuals and the
transaction of meanings among individuals takes places in the context of everyday life. Thus, sociologists
following this line of ontological assumption – called constructivists – emphasise that reality is socially
constructed. They are influenced by the overarching theoretical framework called sociological
phenomenology. The chief proponent of this was the Austrian sociologist Alfred Schütz (1899–1959),
well known for his book The Phenomenology of the Social World. It was refined by his disciples Peter L.
Berger (1929–) and Thomas L. Luckmann (1927–), well known for their book The Social Construction of
Reality, and Harold Garfinkel (1917–2011), who articulated it in its extreme anti-objectivist form in his
book Studies in Ethnomethodology.

Name of Paper: Methodology of Research in Sociology

Sociology Name of Module: Components of Social Research: Theory, Logic,
and Method
 9

Constructivism shifts the attention from the objective social reality ‘existing out there’ to social reality
being constructed in everyday life. Entailed in this approach is privileging the people as the generators of
social knowledge; they are participants in the study, rather than being mere subjects of the study.
Understanding social construction of reality can take place in the context of everyday life of small groups
spread over a long period. The type of knowledge generated by constructivists is remarkably different
from that generated by objectivists.

11.2 Epistemology: Positivism and Interpretivism

In sociology, broadly, there are two contrasting epistemological positions: positivism and interpretivism.
Positivism assumes that science can deal only with observable entities known directly to experience.
Based on concrete objective evidence, it assumes, we can arrive at generalisations about social reality.
Further, based on such generalisations, we can construct general laws or theories which express
relationships about phenomena. Through empirical research, it is assumed, we can show that the
phenomena are or are not related in the predicted way. Explanation in positivism consists in showing that
the observed relationships are instances of the general laws or regularities.

In positivism, answer to research questions is posited in advance; the relationships about phenomena are
predicted and research consists of testing these predictions. These apriori predictions are called
hypotheses, and these hypotheses are tested through the collection and analysis of appropriate data. These
hypotheses are generally deduced from some general propositions about the phenomenon, that is, a
substantive theory. In other words, positivism as an epistemology, in general, implies the primary use of
deductive logic (discussed later).

Moreover, positivism is committed to empiricism, the doctrine that assumes that the only source of
knowledge is observation and obtaining response to externally induced stimulus (e.g., response obtained
through interview schedule or questionnaire). To arrive at generalisations based on observation or
responses to stimuli, it uses measurement and numerical analysis.

In brief, in following objectivist ontology and positivist epistemology, a researcher is inevitably

committed to quantitative approach as the main plank of study. Furthermore, the objective of arriving at
valid and reliable generalisation requires rigorous formulation of the research design. That is, decisions
regarding various steps of the study are meticulously taken and adhered to. This makes the design of a
positivist (quantitative) study linear and ‘hard’.

Markedly different from positivism, is interpretivism, which is also called as hermeneutics and Verstehen
in the literature of sociological theory and research methodology. Interpretivism as an epistemological
position is implicated in constructivist ontology. It assumes that, as a social science, sociology can only
deal with actions (i.e., subjectively meaningful behaviour) and interactions (sequences of action–
reaction). Beyond these, are abstractions (relationships, institutions, society, etc.), which can hardly be
dealt with as empirical entities; they cannot be observed.

Furthermore, instead of seeking to arrive at generalisations about social reality, interpretivism seeks to
interpretively understand the meanings that individuals attach to behaviour, things, events, etc. In other
words, it seeks to understand the process by which reality is socially constructed. In the interpretive
tradition, substantively, theorising about any social phenomenon has to be grounded in the context in

Name of Paper: Methodology of Research in Sociology

Sociology Name of Module: Components of Social Research: Theory, Logic,
and Method
 10

which it is located. Hence, it is called ‘Grounded Theory’ (Glaser and Strauss 1967). A phenomenon
taken out of its context loses meaning.

In interpretivism, answer to research questions is not posited in advance; in fact, engagement with the
field can change the research questions themselves. So, hypothesis, in the sense it is used in positivism
has no meaning in interpretivism. From the data collected in the field, the researcher may arrive at
hypotheses and grounded theory. Thus, interpretivism as an epistemology, in general, primarily implies
the use of inductive logic (discussed later).

The interpretivist epistemology does not depend on a single source or type of data. Anything (oral, visual,
documentary, and unobtrusive measures) that can help in understanding the reality in question will be
used as data. Thus, the use of multiple methods for collection and analysis of data is the norm. Much of
this data is descriptive in nature, but, if available, numerical data is also used. The process by which
different types of data – collected from different sources and using different methods – are put together to
arrive at an understanding or explanation of a phenomenon is called triangulation (discussed later).
Research in the interpretivist tradition, thus, can be likened to solving a puzzle.

In brief, in following constructivist ontology and interpretivist epistemology, a researcher is inevitably

committed to qualitative approach as the main plank of study. Furthermore, the objective of arriving at an
understanding of and explaining a complex phenomenon by locating it in its context requires the research
design to be flexible. That is, decisions regarding various steps of the study cannot be taken in one go or
adhered to meticulously. This makes the design of an interpretivist (qualitative) study cyclical and ‘soft’
(Hennink et al. 2011).

Self-check Exercise- 2
1. What is theory?
The term theory has a range of meanings: it is used broadly to encompass all thought and narrowly to
refer to a single thought. Robert K. Merton has defined as ‘logically interconnected sets of propositions
from which empirical uniformities can be derived’.
2. What is paradigm?

The term ‘paradigm’, according to Thomas Samuel Kuhn, is general ways of seeing the world
(assumptions) which point to the nature of scientific work to be done and the kinds of theory that are
acceptable. In sociology, as with many other scientific terms, however, the term paradigm is used
vaguely. It denotes, ‘schools of sociological work or meta-theories, each of which is relatively self-
contained, with its own methods and theories’

3. How do assumptions differ from hypothesis?

Assumptions are often confused with hypotheses. Assumptions are never tested empirically; they are,
therefore, never accepted or rejected based on empirical evidence. Hypothesis, on the other hand, is a
tentative answer to the research question. In other words, it is a proposition or set of propositions put
forward for empirical testing; it is accepted or rejected based on empirical test. Often, hypotheses are
derived from assumptions. Thus, the strength of an assumption lies in its capacity (a) to generate
testable hypotheses and (b) to explain observations made or results arrived at.

Name of Paper: Methodology of Research in Sociology

Sociology Name of Module: Components of Social Research: Theory, Logic,
and Method
 11

4. How do ontological and epistemological assumptions are related to each other?

These two sets of assumptions are intrinsically related. Ontological assumptions have to do with reality
and the epistemological assumptions have to do with knowledge about that reality.

Component 2: Logic
Answers to research questions take the forming of reasoning. Reasoning is the process of using
knowledge, existing or newly acquired, to formulate hypotheses, make predictions, draw conclusions, or
construct explanations. The branch of philosophy concerned with the use and study of valid reasoning is
called logic (from Ancient Greek logike). There are three methods of reasoning: deductive, inductive, and
abductive; hence, there are three types of logic: deduction, induction, and abduction.

12. Deductive Reasoning

Deductive reasoning starts with given premises (or propositions) to arrive at a guaranteed specific
conclusion: if the original premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. That is, it moves from the
general rule to the specific application. The language of formal, symbolic logic looks more like a
mathematical equation. A deductive syllogism (plain-English version of a mathematical equation) is
expressed in ordinary language.

The process of linking the conclusion from the premises, called deductive inference, could be either valid
or invalid. However, whether the conclusion arrived at through deductive reasoning is sound (true)
or unsound (false) depends on the truth of the original premises, as any premise may be true or false.
Thus, inferential process can be valid even if the starting premise is false. But the conclusion arrived at is
invariably false if the premises are false, even if the inferential process is valid.

Assuming the propositions are sound, the rigorous logic of deductive reasoning can give us absolutely
certain conclusions. However, deductive reasoning by itself cannot increase human knowledge because
the conclusions it yields are tautologies – they are contained within the premises and virtually self-
evident. That is, tautologies are statements that are true by necessity or by virtue of their logical form.

Deductive reasoning is behind the formulation of hypotheses, which are tentative answers to the research
question. These hypotheses are tested with the help of appropriate data. This makes deduction integral to
objectivist ontology and positivist epistemology. Accordingly, studies based on these ontological and
epistemological positions are often described as following the ‘hypothetico-deductive model’.

13. Inductive Reasoning

Inductive reasoning begins with observations that are specific and limited in scope. Based on these
observations, it arrives at a conclusion that is likely, but not certain. In other words, inductive reasoning
moves from the specific to the general. Conclusions reached by the inductive method are not logical
necessities; no amount of inductive evidence guarantees the conclusion. This is because there is no way to
know that all the possible evidence has been gathered, and that there exists no further bit of unobserved

Name of Paper: Methodology of Research in Sociology

Sociology Name of Module: Components of Social Research: Theory, Logic,
and Method
 12

evidence that might invalidate one’s conclusion.1 This cautions us against the language of inductively
reached, probable conclusions.

The fact that inductive reasoning cannot yield absolutely certain conclusions does not mean that they are
useless. In fact, evidence-based inductive reasoning can actually increase human knowledge. It can make
predictions about future events or as-yet unobserved phenomena. It is useful in sociological research as
the basis of grounded theory and a source for the formulation of hypotheses in areas where there is little
generalised knowledge.

14. Abductive Reasoning

Deduction and induction are the two main and contrasting types of logic in research. A third type,
abduction, is often mentioned in discussions on reasoning in research. Abductive reasoning typically
begins with an incomplete set of observations and proceeds to the likeliest possible explanation for the
set. It is akin to routine decision-making that does its best with the information at hand, which often is
incomplete. For this reason, it is described as ‘taking one’s best shot’.

Apparently, abductive reasoning is similar to inductive reasoning. The difference between the two lies in
that inductive reasoning requires the evidence that might shed light on the phenomenon to be fairly
complete, whether positive or negative, but abductive reasoning is characterized by lack of completeness,
either in the evidence, or in the explanation, or both. In science, often deductive and inductive reasoning
are not just enough; a creative leap of imagination and visualisation that is apparently scarcely warranted
by the mere observation may result in a path-breaking discovery. Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity,
based on ‘thought experiment’ (with moving trains and falling elevators), is a good example of how
abductive reasoning can be creative, intuitive, and even revolutionary.

In brief, in research, theory and logic are closely related. Commitment to objectivist ontology and
positivist epistemology entails deductive reasoning, whereas commitment to constructivist ontology and
interpretivist epistemology entails inductive (or sometimes abductive) reasoning.

Although logic is an important and necessary component of research, it alone or in combination with
theory, is not sufficient. As Morris R. Cohen and Ernest Nagel put it succinctly, ‘Logic cannot guarantee
useful or even true propositions dealing with matters of fact …’ (1968: 23). Besides theory (ontology and
epistemology) and logic (deduction, induction, and abduction), what is necessary to answer our research
questions is data or evidence, as it is called in common parlance.

Component 3: Method
15. Methods and Data

Having zeroed in on her/his research problem, and formulated her/his research questions and hypotheses
(if any) to be tested, a sociologist will have to address issues relating to data. There are different types of
data: primary and secondary; quantitative and qualitative; and objective and subjective.

Primary data are those required to be collected afresh by the researcher; secondary data are those already
available to the researcher, though not in the form in which he/she wants it, as the same would have been

Name of Paper: Methodology of Research in Sociology

Sociology Name of Module: Components of Social Research: Theory, Logic,
and Method
 13

collected for purposes not necessarily the same as those of the researcher. Data collected through
interviews and questionnaires are an example of primary data, and data collected as part of the decennial
census and large-scale sample surveys conducted by various organisations are an example of secondary
data.

Quantitative data are numerical in form and they can be subjected to quantitative analysis to find out the
distribution of traits, relationship between variables, and trends over time. Some of the variables chosen
for study may be numerical by nature, e.g., age, income, family size, etc.; others may be nominal in nature
to which numbers are assigned to facilitate quantitative analysis, e.g., caste, gender, religion, linguistic
background, etc. Qualitative data are descriptive in nature; they are expressed through language and its
nuances. Narratives of participants in the study and thick descriptions of events are examples of
qualitative data.

Objective data are those that are external to the individual and to which the researcher has assigned
meaning a priori. Dimensions of a house, age of a respondent, education of the family members, etc. are
examples of objective data. Subjective data are those relating to the subjective makeup of the individuals
studied. Attitudes and opinions are typical illustrations of subjective data.

There are different types of data and there are different methods of collecting and analysing them.
Apparently, the choice of the type of data and the method adopted to collect them is a technical matter:
that is, what is most helpful in answering the research questions on hand. On a closer examination, it will
be revealed that this is not a technical matter alone. Both the research design and the choice of the type of
data and the method for collecting them are significantly influenced by theory (ontology and
epistemology) and logic (deduction and induction). This is illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1: Theory, Logic, and Method in Social Research

Theory Logic Approach Data/Method
Premised Ontology Objectivism Deductive Mainly Secondary data;
on Epistemology Positivism quantitative Observation;
positivism Interview
Questionnaire
Premised Ontology Constructivism Inductive Primarily Ethnography;
on Epistemology Interpretivism qualitative In-depth interview;
non-positivism FGD
Participant Observation
Case study;
Life history;
PRA

A research design based on objectivist ontology and positivist epistemology warrants the researcher to
objectively collect numerical data that are statistically analysable. It prescribes quantitative approach.
Secondary data are privileged in such a design as they are objective.2 Primary data collected from
observation (when controlled for ‘observer effect’) is also privileged. Interestingly, primary data,
collected though the interview method (using an interview schedule or questionnaire), are also used in

Name of Paper: Methodology of Research in Sociology

Sociology Name of Module: Components of Social Research: Theory, Logic,
and Method
 14

studies designed in this tradition. Data collected from the interview method raises the problem of validity
and reliability.3 These issues are generally addressed through pre-test of the interview schedule or
questionnaire, as the case may be.

A research design based on constructivist ontology and interpretivist epistemology prescribes qualitative
approach. It warrants the researcher to objectively collect different types of data in collaboration with the
participants of the study. It lays emphasis on sustained and prolonged engagement (called ‘immersion’) of
the researcher in his ‘field’. Ethnography is qualitative method par excellence. It privileges ‘thick
descriptions’ and detailed narratives. Reflexivity of the researcher plays an important role in it. It permits
multiple sources of data, including quantitative data.

16. Triangulation

Tapping of data from multiple sources and using multiple methods for collecting them necessitates
integrating and synthesising them. The process of doing this called triangulation (read Module RMS 7 for
details). Triangulation is ‘a method used by land surveyors and map-makers to locate a spot, by taking
bearings from three known points and plotting their intersection’ (Abercrombie et al. 2000: 364). Since
more than three methods may be used, the term ‘triangulation’ may not be the most accurate descriptor of
mixing methods in sociology. Nevertheless, the underlying idea is important.

Norman Denzin (1989) has identified four forms of triangulation: (i) data triangulation – use of a number
of types of data in a project; (ii) investigator triangulation – use of several different researchers; (iii)
theory triangulation – application of multiple perspectives to interpret the data; and (iv) methodological
triangulation – use of multiple methods to study a single issue. Although triangulation is widely practised
in qualitative approach to research, to some extent it could also be useful in quantitative approach.

In triangulation or mixing methods, it is important to bear in mind that different sources of data and
different methods of collecting them are premised upon certain ontological and epistemological
assumptions. For example, observation and the use of secondary data are premised upon objectivist
ontology and positivist epistemology. In-depth interview, participant observation, focused group
discussion, participatory research appraisal, case study, life history, etc., are premised upon constructivist
ontology and interpretivist epistemology. Certain methods of analysis – like interaction process analysis,
content analysis, and conversation analysis – can be used in both the traditions. However, the
epistemological assumptions they make and procedures they adopt are quite different.

A sound understanding of (a) theory (ontological and epistemological assumptions), (b) logic (deduction,
induction, and abduction), and (c) methods and techniques of collecting data (observation, interview,
ethnography, case study, life history, etc.) as also analysing them (quantitative and qualitative methods) is
a prerequisite for a competent and skilful sociological researcher.

Self-check Exercise- 3
1. How does deductive reasoning differ from inductive one?
Deductive reasoning starts with given premises (or propositions) to arrive at a guaranteed specific
conclusion. On the contrary, inductive reasoning begins with observations that are specific and limited

Name of Paper: Methodology of Research in Sociology

Sociology Name of Module: Components of Social Research: Theory, Logic,
and Method
 15

in scope. Based on these observations, it arrives at a conclusion that is likely, but not certain. In other
words, inductive reasoning moves from the specific to the general where as the reverse is followed in
case of deductive reasoning. Commitment to objectivist ontology and positivist epistemology entails
deductive reasoning, whereas commitment to constructivist ontology and interpretivist epistemology
entails inductive (or sometimes abductive) reasoning.
2. A research design based on constructivist ontology and interpretivist epistemology would prescribe
what type of research?

Such a research design would follow qualitative approach. This is because such research would
warrant the researcher to objectively collect different types of data in collaboration with the
participants of the study. It would put emphasis on sustained and prolonged engagement (called
‘immersion’) of the researcher in his ‘field’. Ethnography, for instance, is a qualitative method par
excellence. It privileges ‘thick descriptions’ and detailed narratives.

17. Summary
Research in science, as also in social sciences, including sociology, involves the application of
institutionalised principles, procedures, and techniques of acquiring new knowledge as also for refining
existing knowledge. Notwithstanding differences between natural and social sciences, both accept
research as the pathway to reliable knowledge. The nature of relationship among the three components of
social research, namely, theory, logic, and method is reciprocal. Theory has a bearing on logic and
method; logic, on theory and method; method, on theory and logic; and each one is, in turn, influenced by
the other two. Hence, the methodology of social research is more than mere application of methods. Thus,
questions related to research design, the choice of the type of data and the method for collecting them are
deeply influenced by the ontological and epistemological positions of a research as well as the type of
reasoning used to explain data. Hence, a sound understanding of theory, logic and methods and
techniques of collecting data as also analysing them is a prerequisite for a competent and skilful
sociological researcher.

Notes

1. In philosophy of science, this is discussed as ‘Verification’ versus ‘Falsifiability’ (see Taleb 2008).
2. One may recall here that Durkheim’s classical study on suicide was based exclusively on an analysis of
secondary data.

3. Validity, which can take several forms, refers to ‘the capacity of a research technique to encapsulate the
characteristics of the concepts being studied, and so properly to measure what the methods were
intended to measure’ (Payne and Payne 2004: 233). That is, do the research techniques or instruments
‘capture the essence of what they are intended to represent’ (ibid.: 234). Reliability is ‘that property of
a measuring device for social phenomena (particularly in the quantitative methods tradition) which
yields consistent measurements when the phenomena are stable, regardless of who uses it, provided
the basic conditions remain the same’ (ibid.: 195). In other words, ‘reliability is about being confident
that the way data were gathered could be repeated without the methods themselves producing different
results’ (ibid.: 196; emphasis original).

Name of Paper: Methodology of Research in Sociology

Sociology Name of Module: Components of Social Research: Theory, Logic,
and Method