What Do We Get From Using Theory and Method in the Research - Essay Example

The relationship between theory and method Introduction The relationship between theory and method is a crucial of knowledge that provides a researcher with a broader understanding of what they are accomplishing as they endeavor towards discovery. There are a great many similarities between theory and method, just as there are also differences. Defining both theory and method and discovering those differences and similarities helps to understand how they are tied together. Methodology is the process through which a bridge is formed between theory and method, creating a framework for discovery that the research can use to help define the mission that has been undertaken. The problem with the relationship between method and theory is that often through creating a theoretical framework in which method is established, a predetermined outcome is formed before observation and inquiry establishes a sense of the truth. Definitions Theory and method can be described through identifiers that are both similar and different. Theory is a resource for creating a framework for method. The theory is used as a tool for analysis and interpretation in which illumination of a phenomenon emerges. While theory is a guide, method occurs when an idea is put into actuality. Methodology is how the task is accomplished. According to Madison (2011: 14), “This tension between theory and method can be addressed by emphasizing what is significant about each as separate spheres and as inseparable entities”. Method is the activity that comes from the framework of theory. Theory is used to “articulate and identify hidden forces and ambiguities that operate beneath appearances; to guide judgements and evaluations emanating from our discontent; to direct our attention to the critical expressions within different interpretive communities relative to their unique symbol systems, customs and codes” (Madison 2011: 14). The idea of theory is to create a resource from which to inspire inquiry. Flood, Heath, and Lapp (2004: 184-185) suggest that the differences between theory and method can be defined by the aspects of theory as a single or group of supposition from which an explanation is developed about a phenomenon, while method is the way or applications through which theory finds articulation. If one uses a painting as an example of the relationship between theory and method, theory can be determined as the message that the piece of artwork intends, while method is the way in which the composition is constructed to create the message. Without theory, method has no structure and no framework from which to create a path towards discovery. Without method, theory is merely a speculative practice that has no practical application towards a successful use. Theory and Method Theory can be defined as thinking and method can be defined by action. The relationship between theory and method is that without method, theory is nothing more than speculation and without theory, methods become isolated and without a connective meaning. Methods will inspire meaning for theories which would otherwise not have any substance. Method will propel theory through analysis so that the varying aspects of the theory can be tested and proven, or disproven if that is the case. One of the wonderful experiences of research occurs when method provides for further explanation than the theory originally generated. Van Maanen Sorenson and Mitchell (2009) state that “some theories seek to prove covering laws that govern the relationships among variables or constructs in a highly specified field of study and use their method as ways of possibly verifying such covering laws”. Through verification, theory is manifested and through frameworks of understanding, method is given meaning. Methodology Methodology can be seen as a bridge between method and theory, as well as between perspective and tool so that the researcher has a process in which to function (Hesse-Biber and Leavy 2006). While it is possible to see method as a process, it is also possible to divide method from methodology in which methodology holds the function of process, where method is the structure that is defined by theory. The process between theory and method is not always a bridge that can be built. An example can be seen in the theories of Marx, from which an example of the methods of the theory have yet to be manifested because the methodologies that have attempted to build that bridge have yet to be successful. Althusser (1965) suggests that to the date of his writing, no practical application of Marxism was in existence. That still holds true in this time period. The importance of this aspect is that it helps to definitively represent the true difference between theory and method. The application, as exampled through Marxist theories, is never quite the same as the theories under which the method is being applied. Althusser (1965: 170) states that “The application changes nothing in the externally derived truth but its name, a re-baptism incapable of producing any real transformation of the truths that receive it”. The truth of something does not change, but the naming of it is theory, and the framework in which it works is method. In this case, ideology is an adverse state of belief, as belief locks in theory and method and does not allow for transformations to take place in which a new understanding can be identified. Theory and method must be free to be defined by what can be observed and structured through newly defined understandings and meanings of knowledge. Problems of Bias One of the biggest problems in the way in which research is approached is that externally derived truths are used to frame a course of study in such a way as to prevent the truth that is reveal to be anything other than that which has been predetermined by the theory and method under which it was designed. Theories and methods must be applied according to what is observed, not applied in order to observe what is expected. Although reasonable expectations are likely to exist, theory and method are applied when appropriate after discovery rather than One of the thoughts presented by Goodman (2006: 22) is that the observations made by sociologist are informed by their own myths, beliefs, and systems of understanding as much as by that which they observe within another culture. One of the truths of sociological study, as well as the difficulties, is that most all theories either agree with or are in opposition to the works of Marx, Weber and Durkheim. In making this observation, Goodman (2006) suggests that it is a better method to create observational studies without burdening them with conclusions so that those who read them draw their own conclusions. This, however, divorces method from theory and provides for too many diversions from the intention of the researcher in developing knowledge from what is observed. From this standard, one can look at Alice Mabel Bacon’s (1902) discourse on Japanese women in order to see an example of observation that is developed with a lack of cultural judgment. Bacon used friends that she had cultivated who were from Japan as well as a two year trip to Japan in order to create a book that described the experiences of Japanese women and to discuss their lives from her own Western, female perspectives. She admits in her preface that this is only her own observations and interpretations of what she sees. One of the notable absences from her work is a condemnation of Japanese women for their servile role in Japanese society that might appear in contemporary society in a discussion of a society of women who devote themselves to the will of men. From a Victorian standard of Western female perspectives, the lack of an overriding feminist point of view might have influenced her discourse away from a defence of their individuality and autonomy. On the other hand, a modern take on the position of Japanese women in the late 18th century and early 19th century might be influenced by feminist belief systems, denying an unbiased description of their lives. In this case, the theories by which the observations are reported are based upon social and cultural belief systems that influence the researcher. Goodman (2006) reports that he noticed the relationship between theory and method as biased through beliefs that ate predetermined through the establishment of a theory in which the conclusion is then predetermined by the way in which research is approached. Goodman (2006: 25) states emphatically that researchers tend to mirror attitudes and belief systems of the public. Therefore, the problem that can be seen through the relationship between method and theory is that it creates bias and issues that need to be evaluated in the research process. One way to look at the relationship between theory and method can be in looking at scientific inquiry based on fringe science. Luskin (2011) discusses the connections between science and religion, through a discussion of intelligent design. Although the specific of the topic are not relevant to the discussion in this paper, it is interesting to look at a paper that takes theories based on beliefs in order to define methods that will support those theories, regardless of the standard beliefs within mainstream scientific communities. Luskin (2011) makes two statements about the nature of inquiry that both science and religion are ways of knowing about the natural world. He divides them for methods of how they define theories, but not for the meanings of the theories in relationship to the methods. The interesting, if perhaps faulty observation made about the two disciplines is that while science only has the foundation, religion has a greater sense of truth because of the component of faith. Because believers have faith in their truths, the truths defined by believers are of greater importance than are scientific inquiry. The interesting point that is made through the discussion of the disciplines of religion and science is that belief in theories creates a basis upon which method is designed to prove the truths of theory. Therefore, if someone chooses to define the world as flat and wants to find a method to support that theory, it is likely that the faith that is put into that idea can lead to finding proofs that will support an erroneous ‘truth’. The connection between theory and method can support the truths and meaning within each, but it cannot also prove as a way to create false beliefs by defining theory by method and method by theory. The connection of one to the other is only as strong as the foundation that supports each side of the equation. If the theory is developed upon a sound foundation, then the method that will support the theory is more likely to have an equally sound foundation. This is the essential truth about theory and method. In creating theory, the speculation must be valid and without valid speculations and suppositions, the method cannot hope to have reliability. Conclusion The relationship between theory and method is defined by a framework in which theory creates an overall belief system about the research and method defines the structures of the process. Theory is the thought involved in discovery, and method is the action that is taken in order to determine the truth behind the thought. Methodology is the bridge between theory and method. Theory and method are a part of the overall research structure as they create a system in which to create inquiry. The problems with the relationship can be seen in how it predetermines conclusions based upon beliefs that have infused bias into research. In developing appropriate forms of theory and method, research can be more objectively approached, the observations creating truths rather than truths being applied to the work. Truth is defined by the meaning that is given through theory and method that proves its validity. Theory and method may be related, but the designated understanding of theory must have support that is valid if the method is to reliably support the theory. References Althusser, Louis. 1965. For Marx. London: Verso. Bacon, A. M. 1902. Japanese Girls and Women. New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Company. Flood, James, Shirley Brice Heath and Diane Lapp. 2004. Handbook of research on teaching literacy through the communicative and visual arts. Mahwah New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Goodman, Roger. 2006. ‘Theory, methods and Japanese society’ In: Jan van Bremen, Joy Hendry, and Heung Vah Wong, ed. Dismantling the East-West dichotomy: Essays in honour of Jan van Bremen. East Sussex: Taylor and Francis, Inc. Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. (2006). The practice of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publ. Luskin, Casey. (2011). Intelligent Design Theory, and the Relationship between Science and Religion. IDEA. Retrieved from http://www.ideacenter.org/contentm gr/showdetails.php/id/1130 Madison, Soyini. 2011. Critical ethnography: Methods, ethics and performance. New York: Sage. Van Maanen John, Jesper B. Sorenson, and Terrance R. Mitchell. 29 March 2009. The interplay between theory and method – presentation script. International Islamic University Islamabad. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/xetianale/the- interplay-between-theory-and-method Read More