"As an important part of my project, I'd really like to devise a theory, or at least I'd like to adapt one, but I don't know how to go about it."

As already noted, the word theory, as we use it throughout this book, is a proposal about (a) what variables are important for understanding some phenomenon and (b) how those variables are related to each other. In previous chapters we have distinguished between (a) classification systems and (b) theories that involve propositions about what causes events to turn out as they do. However, in the present chapter we subsume both of those matters under the topic building and adapting theories and then differentiate between the two by calling the former classificatory theories and the latter explanatory theories. The two can be considered theoretical matters because both fit our generic definition. Each concerns variables important for understanding some phenomenon, and each proposes how those variables relate to each other. However, the two have different functions, as reflected in the second part of the definition--how variables relate to each other. Classificatory theories (classification systems, typologies, taxonomies) consist of categories into which phenomena (people, institutions, events) can be placed so their likenesses and differences can be compared and contrasted. Explanatory theories consist of proposals about how phenomena interact to produce an observed outcome. Thus, classificatory schemes emphasize comparison, while explanatory schemes emphasize cause. You may wish to create a new--or to revise an existing--classificatory or explanatory theory as part of your thesis or dissertation. Your theory may even be the central focus of the project.

The fourfold purpose of this chapter is to suggest (a) how to identify the need for a new or revised theory, (b) how to devise a classificatory theory, (c) how to devise an explanatory theory, and (d) how to revise an existing theory.

THE NEED FOR A NEW THEORY

The need for a new or revised theory is revealed in your dissatisfaction with the classification systems or causal explanations you have found so far. Such dissatisfaction is generated by the discrepancy between what you have observed and what existing theories offer.

Classificatory Theories

First, consider discrepancies that come to mind when you recognize that a classification system doesn't do justice to people or events you know about. For instance, in the field of politics it is common to categorize politicians as conservatives versus liberals or as right-wingers, middle-of-the-roaders, and left-wingers. But critics have complained that such divisions fail to depict the actual policies and practices of many politicians. Where do you place a politician whose economic proposals seem conservative, social-welfare policies liberal, and views of international relations middle-of-the-road? Hence, a better system is called for. That better system could take the form of a doctoral dissertation.

Problems are also found in categorizing people by ethnic status. One common system in the U.S. involves these divisions: Anglo, Black, Hispanic, Native American, Asian, and Pacific Islander. But what about people from European or Middle-Eastern heritage who are not of Anglo-Saxon stock, such as Italians, Romanians, and Arabs? Where do they belong? And if a woman has an African-American father and an Anglo-American mother, is that woman to be classified as Anglo or Black? Again, a better typology is needed.

Another source of dissatisfaction may be your experience in trying to fit data into a classification system. Imagine that you have gathered cases of wrongdoing and now wish classify them. You try a system found in New York State law, a system that includes such types as felony, misdemeanor, minor infraction, and the like. However, when you begin dividing your cases among the types, you find that many fit none of the categories, so you end up with a heavily populated class entitled miscellaneous or unclassifiable in which you are obliged to place a great number of cases. Something is wrong with a classification scheme that fails to accommodate all cases. A better scheme is needed.

In summary, whenever you inspect a taxonomy that fails to provide classes that accommodate all of your data, you now have the opportunity to create a new classificatory theory or to revise an existing one.

Explanatory Theories

In a similar manner, you may be dissatisfied with the causal explanation that a theory offers to account for a phenomenon. This is likely to occur when you have observed an event, either directly or vicariously in a newspaper or book or television newscast, and then hope to explain the outcome by means of a theory; but you find the explanation some theorist has proposed is unconvincing. To illustrate, assume that you have read about a pair of students who brought automatic pistols to their high school and shot nearly two dozen classmates. A theory proposed by a criminologist traces the cause to the interaction of three variables: (a) a lack of teachers' awareness of danger signs in students' behavior, (b) inadequate communication among school personnel, and (c) inadequate cooperation between school personnel and law enforcement bodies. However, you consider this analysis too simple, for it fails to address a variety of other causal factors that you think are relevant, such as parents' supervision over their children's activities, the patterns of social relationships among students, and more. Thus, as a thesis problem, you choose to propose a theory that includes more variables and envisions a more complex pattern of interrelationships among variables to explain such events as the school shooting.

Your dissatisfaction might also come in the midst of a study you are conducting. Imagine that you have collected 40 interviews with elderly residents of retirement communities. Your purpose has been to learn retirees' opinions about proposed changes to the U.S. government's social security provisions. With the tape-recorded results of your interviews in hand, you now need a theory that will explain why retirees didn't all agree in their judgments about the suggested changes. However, your hunt through the professional literature fails to reveal a theory that suits your need, so you decide to create your own model.

A third condition that motivates researchers to design explanatory theories is the researchers' simply wondering why something happens as it does.

"I'm wondering what caused him to lose the election, when he looked like a sure winner?" (political science)

"Why do some people consistently save money, while others spend every cent they get their hands on?" (economics, psychology)

"What are games intended to accomplish in different cultures?" (anthropology)

"Why do some disadvantaged people go on welfare while others don't?" (social work) 

If such events motivate researchers to create or revise theories, then how can they go about that task? The following paragraphs suggest a solution.

BUILDING A CLASSIFICATORY THEORY

Apparently the most common approach to constructing a classification system consists of gathering a quantity of data (items, cases, examples, responses) within a defined domain, then seeking to create categories (a) into which all of the items can be fitted (no items are left over) and (b) that will convey a useful meaning when the categories are compared.

To illustrate one way this can be done, we draw on our own experience with a project conducted to reveal the consequences people would recommend for the misconduct of individuals involved in six cases of wrongdoing. We use this example because we have an insider's view of the approach used.

The six cases varied from wartime crimes to adolescents' lawbreaking and to automobile accidents. Here is the target question the research was expected to answer:

In such moral incidents as those depicted in the six cases, what diverse rationales or types of moral reasoning will people adduce to support the consequences they would suggest for the wrongdoers in the incidents? ( Thomas & Diver-Stamnes, 1993, p. 1)

A more specific aim of the study was to compare the responses to the cases by six different groups of students, ones from: (a) a California innercity high school located in a socioeconomically depressed neighborhood, (b) a Catholic high school in a medium-sized California city, (c) high schools and universities in Saudi Arabia, (d) a junior college in Honolulu, (e) a high school in a small Hawaiian community, and (f) a teacher-education program in Northern California. A classification system would be needed to categorize respondents' answers so that the six groups could be compared. Because no established system was available to perform this task, we generated a system out of questionnaire replies from the 542 questionnaire respondents. The process was as follows:

We began with no preconceived organizational categories into which we would fit people's rationales for their suggested consequences. In other words, we chose to be led by the data, extracting categories inductively by listing the respondents' answers from the questionnaires.

As a first step, answers that were either identical or seemed clearly an alternate phrasing of the same idea were combined as one item in the list. For example, such responses as "Make the person suffer for the offense" and "The person should feel what it's like to be hurt" formed a single item. Even with such combining of answers, the list was very long, extending to more than 200 items. In effect, although respondents were reacting to only six moral incidents, they provided a great diversity of moral-value rationales.

As a next step, the items that appeared similar in intent were conceived to form a cluster, and a word or phrase was created to reflect the apparent essence of that cluster. To illustrate, the two responses "She was too young to know better" and "In the society he comes from, what he did was not considered improper" were both placed in a category entitled Awareness of Right and Wrong.

Finally, the labeled clusters were cast into five major groupings that appeared to represent broader generalizations than did the clusters. For instance, clusters labeled Prevent Future Offenses by the Actor, Deter Others from Misconduct, and Wreak Revenge were collected under the title The purpose of the consequences. This process resulted in five overarching categories that represented the general framework for the taxonomy, (1) moral values, (2) purpose, (3) conception of causality, (4) consequence feasibility, and (5) agent qualifications. Such a scheme enabled us to propose that the consequences people recommend for wrongdoing are the product of a pattern of thought that:

We thus judged that such a five-element scheme, with its subsumed clusters and types, would be useful for deriving a well-informed interpretation of (a) why people think their recommended consequences are just and practicable and (b) how the beliefs of one individual or one group compare with those of another. ( Thomas & Diver-Stamnes, 1993, pp. 19-20)

The final version of the typology featured three levels of specificity. The first, most general level consisted of the above five major categories. The next, more specific level consisted of the clusters under a major category. The third, most specific tier contained particular types within a cluster. This scheme can be illustrated with the class entitled moral values, which was divided into two sections: (a) principles and (b) conditions affecting the application of the principles. On Level I, Moral Values Conditions subsumes eight clusters that form Level II. The number of Level II types that appear under each Level II cluster is indicated in parentheses following each cluster title.

The typology resulting from the foregoing process was then used to classify the answers offered by the 542 participants in the moral-reasoning study.