Methods of Theorizing: A Call for Pluralism
Associate Professor Mikael Carleheden has contributed with the article "Methods of Theorizing: A Call for Pluralism" for the special session of "Global dialogue - Magazine of the International Sociological Association".
How should we understand the relation between theoretical and empirical work? Sociologists have most often talked about it as
highly problematic. Claims like “a very deep hiatus” (Parsons), “divorcement” (Blumer), and “an extremely damaging division” (Joas and Knöbl) are common. Attempts to understand the relation have a history as old as the discipline of sociology itself. The proposals have shifted with the dominant methodological convictions. In view of this history, a pluralistic approach seems reasonable. So, one possible point of departure is the following: A sociologist is a scientist who sits on a stool with three
legs: qualitative research, quantitative research, and social theory. If one of these legs is in bad shape, the stool might break, and the sociologist would fall over. These “legs” signify the internal differentiation of sociology into three main subfields, while the stool as a whole signifies their interdependency. The need to integrate these skills and knowledge, without losing the gains from differentiation and specialization, is currently discussed under the heading “mixed method.” However, the focus of such work is primarily the relation between quantitative and qualitative research. So what about the third leg? Should we simply add it to the mixed methods approach in order to analyze a tripartite relation instead of a twofold one? In this article, the author suggest another way forward.
Read the article through the link: https://globaldialogue.isa-sociology.org/uploads/imgen/3388-v13i2-english.pdf