#31 Swedberg on how to theorize in the social sciences
Summing up the approach of Creative Theorizing
Richard Swedberg wrote:
It is clear that different ways of theorizing exist, in the natural sciences as well as in the social sciences … The approach that has been presented in this book is … only applicable to the social sciences. Some of its features are not original, in the sense that they can also be found in other approaches to theorizing. But it also contains some elements that are relatively new. And the overall combination that makes up the approach is, to my knowledge, not to be found elsewhere.
In my mind I refer to my approach as creative theorizing, a term that I owe to Frank Dobbin. What first and foremost characterizes it is the argument that a distinct space must be assigned to theorizing in the research process. This goes for the prestudy as well as the main study. Theory is often just squeezed in somewhere in the process of inquiry, and given much less attention than the methods part. It lacks its own distinct space.
Theorizing, I argue, must be provided with a space that is large enough not only for some early observation to take place but also for the steps or procedures that I call building out the theory. This latter part consists of naming; constructing concepts, typologies, and the like; plus coming up with an explanation.
A second distinctive feature of my approach is that it represents a deliberate attempt to shift the main focus from theory to theorizing. The social sciences currently speak a lot about theory but less so about theorizing. While the two obviously belong together, my stance is to prioritize theorizing over theory. The reason for this is simple: theorizing is where theory is produced.
My definition of theorizing also follows from this, in the sense that I define theory in terms of theorizing rather than the other way around. Theory is the end product of theorizing. And theorizing is what precedes the final formulation of a theory, before it is set in print, once and for all, and presented to other people. Theorizing is what gives birth and life to theory.
A third distinctive feature of my approach is that theorizing draws on a number of different types of thinking, feeling, and going about things that are currently mainly studied in cognitive science.
While reasoning of the traditional type is central to theorizing well, there is also guessing, hoping, speculating, using free associations, engaging in reverie, being intuitive and imaginative, and quite a bit more. Related to this, it is important to try to somehow access your subconscious.
Another distinctive feature of my approach is that theorizing is a practical activity. This idea is quite common, but less so the realization that the kind of knowledge we need to theorize well is also of a practical nature. What we most of all need are practical tips for how to theorize well, less so social science studies of theorizing. We also very much need to learn how to teach theorizing and what kind of practical exercises to use.
This emphasis on the need for practical knowledge is one reason why the title of this book refers to the art of theory. Art is to be understood in its old-fashioned meaning of practical skill in doing something.
The next feature of the kind of theorizing that I advocate has to do with the fact that it is a form of social theorizing. You first need to develop a sociological eye, I suggest, to theorize well. This represents a kind of deep knowledge. Second, you need to have an arsenal of concepts, mechanisms, and theories at your disposal. These do not need to be as deeply absorbed as the capacity to see things from a social perspective. It is enough that you can access them with more or less ease, as you need them. What is involved here is not deep knowledge but familiarity.
Another defining feature of the approach to theorizing in this book is that theorizing should take place not only during the main study but also — and creatively so — during the stage that I call the prestudy. This stage is currently not part of the research process, but I suggest that it should be.
I also advocate very strongly that the tools that are needed for theorizing (such as concepts, types, and so on) should also be used for heuristic purposes. This is particularly the case during the prestudy. The processes of trying to figure out a name for the phenomenon you study, turning the name into a concept, and the like can all also be used to discover something new about the topic that is studied. This constitutes an important part of my argument about theorizing.
I suggest as well that theorizing during the prestudy and the main study must be carried out in close connection with the study of empirical facts. This is what the slogan “you cannot theorize without facts” refers to. It is also why I argue that observation represents an integral part of theorizing. You should typically begin by studying some phenomenon; and your tentative theory represents an attempt to explain this phenomenon.
The type of theorizing that takes place during the prestudy can be called early theorizing. But there also exist two other kinds of theorizing in social science. One of these I call fundamental theorizing, and it deals with presuppositions and other nonempirical parts of theory such as what constitutes a fact, a concept, causality, and so on. The other type of theorizing occurs when the research design is drawn up and as it is executed, and it can be called theorizing during the main study. This type of theorizing is in many respects similar to that of early theorizing but is less exploratory and typically based on data that has been gathered in a methodical way.
There is also the issue of the kind of topic that the social scientist should work on. I have earlier said that you need a good topic to theorize well. What is meant by a good topic, however, is not so clear, beyond the general notion that it should be socially or existentially important.
Finally, the stage of early or creative theorizing should in principle be followed by the main study. If the result of the prestudy is promising — if you are on to something promising and interesting — you will want to proceed to the next stage, which is to draw up a research design and then execute it. But if the prestudy is not successful, it is probably best to abandon the topic or at least set it aside for now and proceed to something else …
… Throughout this book I have argued that it is possible for the individual student of social science to learn how to theorize and how this may lead to a more creative social science. Theorizing, I have also suggested, is something you learn by doing, and you have to do it yourself.
Richard Swedberg, The Art of Social Theory, Princeton 2014 [211-214, 228]