nach oben

Social Justice Research

Erschienen in:

01.09.2007

The Limits of Theoretical Integration

verfasst von: David G. Wagner

Erschienen in: Social Justice Research | Ausgabe 3/2007

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

The integration of theoretical knowledge is often seen as the ultimate goal of research activity in the social sciences. In this article I explore limits in the form and degree to which our knowledge can be integrated, as well as limits in the worth and desirability of some kinds of integration. Most of the analysis depends on drawing two kinds of distinctions in theoretical activity—between theoretical and metatheoretical work and among different types of integration in each kind of work. Using primarily examples from theory and research on justice issues, I articulate three different ways in which work at the theoretical level can be integrated. Each type represents a distinct kind of knowledge development, requires different criteria of evaluation, and involves a varying degree of difficulty to achieve. Nevertheless, each of these types of integration is well worth pursuing. Justice research shows evidence of work involving all three types. Using a somewhat broader range of examples, I also distinguish three different ways in which metatheoretical work might be integrated. Again, each type is quite distinct and should be evaluated in different ways. However, each of these types is significantly more difficult to achieve than any of the types of theoretical integration. Moreover, I suggest that the last metatheoretical type—involving the integration of entire strategies, perspectives or schools of thought—is probably not even a desirable goal. As a consequence of these analyses, I recommend (1) that social scientists in general (and justice researchers in particular) focus most of our attention on one or another of the types of theoretical integration, and (2) that we articulate clearly which type of integration we are pursuing and evaluate our success at the effort using only the appropriate criteria.

Vorheriger Artikel Theoretical Integration and Unification: A Focus on Justice

Nächster Artikel Justice and Emotions

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Some concepts are considerably less unitary in character. For example, the idea of “distributive justice” actually refers to an entire theory regarding how and when justice occurs (or perhaps to a fairly large set of causes and effects related to the concept). These more complex concepts are better understood as labels for the explanatory domains of the theories they refer to. They are not individual elements of the theories themselves but references to the entire theoretical edifice constructed from those elements.

See Wagner (2000) for a more detailed analysis of each of these theory elements. Also, see Jasso (2001) for a related, but somewhat broader, analysis of deductive and hierarchical theories. What I have described here is closer to what Jasso describes as deductive theory.

Note that integrating theories are likely to attend to only most of the scope or entail only most of the principles of the earlier theories. Domains left out of the integrating theory are likely to be considered unimportant or epiphenomenal. Principles left out of the integrating theory are likely to be considered simplistic or limited in their applicability.

Note that specification of the equity and equality principles did not begin with Adams and Sampson. In fact, discussion of these two rules goes as far back as Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics.

Still other work on justice has focused on procedural justice. In these theories (see, e.g., Thibaut & Walker, 1975; Lind & Tyler, 1988), attention is focused on the fairness of the process by which distributions are determined, rather than on the outcomes that result. Using some of the same tools employed in integrating allocative and retributive justice, Törnblom and Vermunt (1999) have developed an integration of procedural justice with distributive justice.

Indeed, Thye has suggested a partial solution may lie in conceiving at least one aspect of the bargaining situation as collective and geared toward a group goal. Specifically, both actors in a bargaining situation have an interest in arriving at a mutually acceptable exchange. Thus, the actor’s pursuit of an individual interest in accumulating resources is framed by the necessity to work collectively in an exchange relation to achieve the individual goals

In fact, any attempt to develop a set of moral principles of justice—Platonic, Aristotelian, utilitarian, or Rawlsian—to which all can or should subscribe represents work at the level of a universe of discourse.

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.

Berger, J., Fisek, M. H., Norman, R. H., & Wagner, D.G. (1985). The formation of reward expectations in status situations. In J. Berger & M. Zelditch Jr. (Eds.), Status, rewards and influence: How expectations organize behavior (pp. 215–261). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Berger, J., Wagner, D. G., & Zelditch Jr. M. (1989). Theory growth, social processes, and metatheory. In J. Turner (Ed.), Theory building in sociology (pp. 107–123). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Berger, J., Wagner, D. G., & Zelditch Jr. M. (1992). A working strategy for constructing theories: State organizing processes. In G. Ritzer (Eds.), Metatheorizing (pp. 19–42). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Berger, J., Zelditch Jr. M., Anderson, B., & Cohen, B. P. (1972). Structural aspects of distributive justice: A status value formulation. In J. Berger, M. Zelditch Jr. & B. Anderson (Eds.), Sociological theories in progress (Vol. 2, pp. 119–146). Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Denzin, N. K. (1969). Symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology. American Sociological Review, 34, 922–934.CrossRef

Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis for distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137–149.CrossRef

Hawley, A. (1950). Human ecology: A theory of community structure. New York: Ronald.

Hegtvedt, K. A. (2006). Justice frameworks. In P. Burke (Ed.). Contemporary social psychological theories (pp. 46-69). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Hegtvedt, K. A., & Markovsky, B. (1995). Justice and injustice. In K. S. Cook, G. A. Fine & J. S. House (Eds.), Sociological perspectives on social psychology (pp. 256–280). New York: Allyn and Bacon.

Hogan, R., & Emler, N. P. (1981). Retributive justice. In M. J. Lerner & S. C. Lerner (Eds.), The justice motive in social behavior (pp. 125–143). New York: Plenum.

Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World [revised edition, 1974].

Jasso, G. (1978). On the justice of earnings: A new specification of the justice evaluation function. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 1398–1419.CrossRef

Jasso, G. (1980). A new theory of distributive justice. American Sociological Review, 45, 3–32.CrossRef

Jasso, G. (1990). Methods for the theoretical and empirical analysis of comparison processes. Sociological Methodology, 20, 369–419.CrossRef

Jasso, G. (1998). Exploring the justice of punishments: Framing, expressiveness, and the just prison sentence. Social Justice Research, 11, 397–422.CrossRef

Jasso, G. (1999). How much injustice is there in the world? Two new justice indexes. American Sociological Review, 64, 133–168.CrossRef

Jasso, G. (2001). Formal theory. In J. H. Turner (Ed.), Handbook of sociological theory (pp. 37–68). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.CrossRef

Kingsley, D. (1959). The myth of functional analysis. American Sociological Review, 24, 757–772.CrossRef

Lane, I., & Messe, L. (1971). Equity and the distribution of rewards. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20, 1–17.CrossRef

Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.

Merton, R. K. (1949). Manifest and latent functions. In R. K. Merton (Ed.), Social theory and social structure (pp. 21–81). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Mikula, G. (1974). Nationality, performance and sex as determinants of reward allocation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 435–440.CrossRef

Mikula, G. (1980). On the role of justice in allocation decisions. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice in Social Interaction (pp. 127–166). New York: Springer Verlag.

Miller, D. T., & Vidmark, N. (1981). The social psychology of punishment reactions. In M. J. Lerner & S. C. Lerner (Eds.), The justice motive in social behavior (pp. 145–173). New York: Plenum.

Parsons, T. (1937). The structure of social action. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.

Sampson, E. E. (1975). On justice as equality. Journal of Social Issues, 31, 45–64.

Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975) Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Thye, S. (1999). Status influence and status value. In D. Willer (Ed.), Network exchange theory, (pp. 248–255). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Thye, S. (2000). A status value theory of power: Ratio level predictions for new exchange structures. American Sociological Review, 65, 407–432.CrossRef

Törnblom, K. Y. (1988). Positive and negative allocations: A typology and a model for conflicting justice principles. In E. J. Lawler & B. Markvosky (Eds.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 5, pp. 141–168). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Törnblom, K. Y. (1992). The social psychology of distributive justice. In K. R. Scherer (Ed.), Distributive justice from an interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 177–284). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Törnblom, K. Y., & Jonsson, D. R. (1985). Subrules of the equality and contribution principles: Their perceived fairness in distribution and retribution. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 249–261.CrossRef

Törnblom, K. Y., & Vermunt, R. (1998). The relationship between positive and negative outcome allocations and how they affect our justice conceptions. Social Justice Research, 11, 377–380.CrossRef

Törnblom, K. Y., & Vermunt, R. (1999). An integrative perspective on social justice: Distributive vs. procedural fairness evaluations of positive and negative outcome allocations. Social Justice Research, 12, 37–61.CrossRef

Wagner, D. G. (1995). Reward preferences in mixed-sex interaction. Small Groups Research, 26, 353–371.CrossRef

Wagner, D. G. (2000). On the irrationality of rejecting falsified theories. Sociological Focus, 32, 27–39.

Wagner, D. G. (2006). Gender, status, and reward preference: An expectation states account. Manuscript under review.

Walster, E., Berscheid, E., & Walster, G. W. (1973). New directions in equity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 151–176.CrossRef

Willer, D., Walker, H. A., Markovsky, B., Willer, R., Lovaglia, M., Thye, T., & Simpson, B. (2002) Network exchange theory. In J. Berger & M. Zelditch Jr. (Eds.), New directions in contemporary sociological theory (pp. 109–144). New York: Rowman and Littlefield.

Zimmerman, D. H., & Wieder, D. L. (1970). Ethnomethodology and the problem of order: Comment on Denzin. In J. Douglas (Ed.), Understanding everyday life (pp. 285–298). Chicago: Aldine.

Titel: The Limits of Theoretical Integration
verfasst von: David G. Wagner
Publikationsdatum: 01.09.2007
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Social Justice Research / Ausgabe 3/2007
Print ISSN: 0885-7466
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-6725
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-007-0045-9

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2007

Theoretical Unification in Justice and Beyond

Reflecting Upon Etic and Emic Perspectives on Distributive Justice

Justice and Emotions

Distant Relations, a Review of “Social Psychology and Economics”

Towards an Integration of Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice, and Social Resource Theories

Theoretical Integration and Unification: A Focus on Justice

Premium Partner