RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

12 THE NATURE OF INQUIRY
chiefly with inanimate matter than to human
scientists who, of necessity having to deal with
samples of larger human populations, have to
exercise great caution when generalizing their
findings to the particular parent populations.
We come now to the core question: What is
science Kerlinger (1970) points out that in the
scientific world itself two broad views of science
may be found: the static and the dynamic.Thestatic
view, which has particular appeal for laypeople,
is that science is an activity that contributes
systematized information to the world. The work
of the scientist is to uncover new facts and add
them to the existing corpus of knowledge. Science
is thus seen as an accumulated body of findings,
the emphasis being chiefly on the present state of
knowledge and adding to it. 2 The dynamic view,
by contrast, conceives science more as an activity,
as something that scientists do. Accordingtothis
conception it is important to have an accumulated
body of knowledge of course, but what really matter
most are the discoveries that scientists make. The
emphasis here, then, is more on the heuristic
nature of science.
Contrasting views exist on the functions of
science. We give a composite summary of these in
Box 1.3. For the professional scientists, however,
science is seen as a way of comprehending
the world; as a means of explanation and
understanding, of prediction and control. For them
the ultimate aim of science is theory.
Theory has been defined by Kerlinger as ‘a set
of interrelated constructs [concepts], definitions,
and propositions that presents a systematic view
of phenomena by specifying relations among
variables, with the purpose of explaining and
predicting the phenomena’ (Kerlinger 1970). In
asense,theorygatherstogetheralltheisolated
bits of empirical data into a coherent conceptual
framework of wider applicability. More than this,
however, theory is itself a potential source of
further information and discoveries. It is in this
way a source of new hypotheses and hitherto
unasked questions; it identifies critical areas for
further investigation; it discloses gaps in our
knowledge; and enables a researcher to postulate
the existence of previously unknown phenomena.
Box 1.3
The functions of science
1 Its problem-seeking, question-asking,
hunch-encouraging, hypotheses-producing function.
2 Its testing, checking, certifying function; its trying out
and testing of hypotheses; its repetition and
checking of experiments; its piling up of facts.
3 Its organizing, theorizing, structuring function; its
search for larger and larger generalizations.
4 Its history-collecting, scholarly function.
5 Its technological side; instruments,
methods, techniques.
6 Its administrative, executive and organizational side.
7 Its publicizing and educational functions.
8 Its applications to human use.
9 Its appreciation, enjoyment, celebration and
glorification.
Source:Maslow1954
Clearly there are several different types of theory,
and each type of theory defines its own kinds
of ‘proof’. For example, Morrison (1995a) identifies
empirical theories, ‘grand’ theories and ‘critical’
theory. Empirical theories and critical theories are
discussed below. ‘Grand theory’ is a metanarrative,
defining an area of study, being speculative, clarifying
conceptual structures and frameworks, and
creatively enlarging the way we consider behaviour
and organizations (Layder 1994). It uses fundamental
ontological and epistemological postulates
which serve to define a field of inquiry (Hughes
1976). Here empirical material tends to be used
by way of illustration rather than ‘proof’. This
is the stuff of some sociological theories, for
example Marxism, consensus theory and functionalism.
While sociologists may be excited by
the totalizing and all-encompassing nature of such
theories, they have been subject to considerable
undermining. For example, Merton (1949), Coser
and Rosenberg (1969), Doll (1993) and Layder
(1994) contend that while they might possess the
attraction of large philosophical systems of considerable
– Byzantine – architectonic splendour and
logical consistency, nevertheless they are scientifically
sterile, irrelevant and out of touch with a
world that is characterized by openness, fluidity,