Learning Unit 2 PDF - Research in Social Sciences (RSC2601)

 Learning unit 2 | RSC2601 Theory and Conceptualisation in Social Science Research TABLE OF CONTENTS LEARNING UNIT 2: THEORY AND CONCEPTUALISATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEAR...

 Learning unit 2 | RSC2601 Theory and Conceptualisation in Social Science Research TABLE OF CONTENTS LEARNING UNIT 2: THEORY AND CONCEPTUALISATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH. 2 1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................2 2. LEARNING OUTCOMES...........................................................................................................2 3. DEFINING KEY CONCEPTS.....................................................................................................2 4. WHAT IS THEORY?..................................................................................................................3 4.1 Theory as a conceptual framework.....................................................................................5 4.2 Scope and level of abstraction of theory..............................................................................7 4.3 Reconsidering the relationship between theory and research.............................................8 4.4 Concluding remarks on theory and research.......................................................................9 5. THE CONCEPTUAL GROUNDING OF RESEARCH..............................................................10 6. CONDUCTING A LITERATURE REVIEW...............................................................................11 7. FORMULATING A RESEARCH QUESTION...........................................................................13 8. FORMULATING A HYPOTHESIS...........................................................................................15 9. OPERATIONALISING CONCEPTS.........................................................................................18 10. CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................................20 1  Learning unit 2 | RSC2601 Theory and Conceptualisation in Social Science Research LEARNING UNIT 2: THEORY AND CONCEPTUALISATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH Tshepo B Maake 1. INTRODUCTION This learning unit aims to describe the relationship between theory and research. The learning unit defines and describes theory with reference to its purpose, the forms of explanations it provides, its scope and the domains of social reality it deals with. Additionally, attention is given to conceptualisation with a specific focus on identifying a suitable research topic and problem and formulating a hypothesis. 2. LEARNING OUTCOMES After the completion of this learning unit/lesson, you should be able to: Define a theory in research. Explain the purpose of theory in social science research. Describe how theories develop. Select a research topic. Identify a research problem. Explain the key conceptual stages in social science research. Explain how hypotheses are used in social science research. 3. DEFINING KEY CONCEPTS Theory: Du-Plooy Cilliers et al. (2015) define a theory as a logical description of a set of interrelated constructs, concepts, propositions and definitions that present relationships of specific processes or phenomena in a certain discipline. Social research: Babbie (2021) defines social research as a vehicle for exploring social issues, to explain and provide reasons for phenomena in terms of causal relationships. Social research is also conducted to describe the state of social affairs. Conceptualisation: Conceptualisation is a mental process in which vague and imprecise notions or concepts are made more specific and precise. In other words, it is a process whereby we specify what we mean when we use certain concepts in research (Babbie, 2021; Creswell, 2014). 2  Learning unit 2 | RSC2601 Theory and Conceptualisation in Social Science Research Activity 1 Define the concepts below in your own words: Theory Social research Conceptualisation 4. WHAT IS THEORY? The word “theory” is often used in everyday conversation. Someone may say that they have a theory on why something occurred. For example, one may argue that poverty in South Africa causes crime. Used in this way, the theory implies a possible explanation. After hearing the theory, someone else may argue that it is only a theory. Here, theory is equated to speculation. The person may argue that evidence or “facts” are needed to support the assertion. We can probably list several other ways in which the notion theory is used in everyday conversation. These competing and contradictory notions of theory suggest that the word is being used carelessly. Social scientists have, despite their differences, a more systematic and precise definition of what they mean when they use the word “theory”. Theory, based on reasoning, provides an interpretation of the facts collected. It tells us why and how particular phenomena occur. Babbie (2021:43) defines a theory as “a systematic explanation for the observations that relate to a particular aspect of life: juvenile delinquency, for example, or perhaps social stratification or political revolution”. Furthermore, Babbie (2021) teaches us that theories comprise sets of statements that are interrelated to provide a reasonable explanation for some aspect of social life. In other words, theory helps us understand causal relationships between related phenomena and enables a focused and deeper understanding of complex phenomena (Du-Plooy Cilliers, Davis & Bezuidenhout, 2015). For example, Erwin Goffman’s (1963) stigma theory posits that people are stigmatised because they possess attributes that are different from members in a particular space. Goffman (1963) refers to these attributes as stigma, because they are discrediting to the individual possessing them. Gay people, for instance, are stigmatised because their sexual identities do not conform to the gender-normative expectations of society. As such, society’s perceptions of their sexual identities inform the stigma and discrimination that they may encounter in particular spaces. In terms of a causal relationship, negative perceptions of gay identities lead to discrimination and homophobia. We, therefore, define theory as a conceptual framework that provides an explanation of certain occurrences or phenomena. But, what do we mean by a conceptual framework? Theories consist of logically interconnected propositions. Propositions are generalised abstractions about social reality; they are statements about the state of the world, supported by evidence (facts). Provided that these propositions are logically organised 3  Learning unit 2 | RSC2601 Theory and Conceptualisation in Social Science Research into a coherent whole, these interconnected propositions can provide an explanation. Theory prevents fragmentation of knowledge by ordering and, at least, identifying a clearly defined relationship between phenomena (Babbie 2021; Du Plooy-Cilliers et al. 2015). We can make this more transparent by providing you with an example. One of the most well-known theories in psychology is the frustration-aggression hypothesis, first formulated by John Dollard and his colleagues, in 1939. It provides an explanation of aggressive behaviour with reference to the experience of having one’s goals frustrated. The theory consists of the following propositions: a. People are motivated by goals. b. Reaching those goals provides a pleasurable release of energy. c. Being frustrated in reaching those goals leads to the build-up of energy. d. Aggressive behaviour leads to a release of the pent-up energy. e. Frustration, therefore, leads to the occurrence of aggression as a way of releasing pent-up energy. As you can see by reading these propositions, we have organised them into a logical sequence, so that one proposition leads to another. Connected together, these propositions can explain aggressive behaviour, which turns it into a theory of aggressive behaviour. Theory provides our inquiry with a focus, by suggesting what evidence we need. Since this evidence is specified, the theory provides a sifting mechanism, making the evidence generated by research more manageable and thus keeping us from drowning under too much information. Theory also potentially yields new insight, by organising evidence in a new and different way. Sets of interrelated propositions can be logically rearranged; we can even make connections between phenomena that were previously not connected and thought to be independent of each other. It is precisely when theory gives new explanations, supported by evidence that we learn from it and uncover new dimensions of and patterns in social reality. W O’Brien, cited in Gilbert (1993:1), aptly summarises the role of theory in research: The role of theory is precisely to make things that were hidden visible, to define some patterns and give some meaning to the sorts of observations that social researchers continually make when investigating society. Seeing the world in different ways is the essential and fundamental role of social research, and the ability to see these differences and to make sense of the different points of view that a researcher can take is the basic contribution that theory makes to the research process. In effect, theory provides research with “scaffolding” by organising and generating new ideas. 4  Learning unit 2 | RSC2601 Theory and Conceptualisation in Social Science Research A theory provides an explanation for our questions: theory asks “why” and “how”. We have argued that theories enable us to make sense of the information we collect in research. Theories also generate particular lines of enquiry. There is, for instance, a debate about whether we should conceptualise unemployment within South Africa as class-based, race- based or a combination of both. Such a debate highlights one of the most important contributions of theory: it can provide us with a deeper understanding of what is at stake in political and social conflicts that have a real existence. 4.1 Theory as a conceptual framework Learning concepts and theory is similar to learning a language. Using this analogy, theory is the language through which social scientists speak to each other. Just as languages are constituted by their vocabulary (words), theories are constituted through concepts and, just as there are many languages in the world, so there are many theories in social sciences. Concepts are the basic components of every theory. Concepts vary in terms of their complexity. Consider “poverty” and “alienation”. We all have some sense of what poverty is. However, the meaning of the concept “alienation” will be less clear to us and, even when the meaning of concepts appears quite obvious, researchers often need to clarify it. Crow, in Allen and Thomas (1992), indicates that poverty can be defined as a situation where people’s existence is threatened. Chronic hunger is one dimension of poverty. However, poverty can also be defined as a situation where the means at the disposal of people are below the prevailing social standards in society. The first definition refers to absolute poverty, and the second one to relative poverty. It is important to remember that a concept is an abstract idea and not the phenomenon itself. As a result, there is a potential margin of error in our characterisation and observation of the phenomena we study. Terminology that is developed in social sciences is often also used in everyday conversation. Du Plooy-Cilliers et al. (2015) indicate that certain concepts that were used in previous research become popular cultural terms, which may be used in everyday language. As an example, the term “ego” originates from Sigmund Freud’s theory of the human psyche, but it has become popular and is often used in everyday interactions. As such, people take a range of concepts from various theories and use these concepts, often incorrectly, in their daily conversations. The way the term “ego” is used in everyday conversations is often far removed from the original definition of the concept used by Freud. This can lead to confusion about the meaning of such concepts. Hence, it is imperative in a research study to describe the exact theoretical meaning of a concept. Social 5  Learning unit 2 | RSC2601 Theory and Conceptualisation in Social Science Research scientists may also borrow terminology used by people in their everyday language. Social scientists deal with phenomena people come across every day. Consequently, social scientists borrow terminology from everyday language (e.g. “group” or “family”). In these cases, social scientists often make the definitions of these words more precise. Concepts give researchers and theorists a shorthand language through which they can communicate with each other. It is, therefore, essential that researchers are clear about the meaning of the concepts used if they are to understand the work of other researchers and theorists. Although social scientists are more systematic, rigorous and cautious in their definition and use of concepts, they are still interested in the way these concepts are used in everyday life. Du Plooy-Cilliers et al. (2015: 42) explain that “by conceptualising the theoretical aspects of a study, we define concepts in terms of their theoretical meaning, to help us organise our thoughts and hence also our studies”. As such, conceptual analysis is absolutely\necessary for any theory. To recap: concepts identify and describe phenomena. Concepts are, therefore, the starting point of theorising. New concepts, introduced by theory, ideally open up new avenues to explore. Intersectionality, a concept that was coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw (1991), despite its critiques, continues to have an enormous impact in the social sciences, particularly when it comes to understanding various forms of discrimination, including gender and sexuality discrimination. The concepts help us understand how multiple forms of discrimination may lead to the oppression of certain people in society. For example, black unemployed women in South Africa may be oppressed based on their intersecting gender, race and class. As such, they do not only encounter a single issue of gender discrimination, but multiple intersecting discriminations, including racial and class discrimination. Thus, intersectionality helps us understand how gender, class and racial identities intersect in ways that perpetuate multiple forms of discrimination. The concept sensitises researchers to another realm of social reality that otherwise would not be explored if the concept was not coined. However, description and identification are not the same as explanation. Concepts are related to each other. Together, these clusters of concepts “build the sentences” of theory. We have pointed out that theorists use reasoning to relate phenomena to each other systematically. In each case, a particular set of concepts is associated with a specific theory. Can you think of any examples in one of the academic disciplines you are studying? For instance, gender theory uses concepts such as gender normativity, heteronormativity, patriarchy, masculinity, femininity, heterosexuality and homosexuality to describe the gender relations between men and women in various contexts of society. In contrast, Marxist theorists use concepts such as class, working class, bourgeoisie, 6  Learning unit 2 | RSC2601 Theory and Conceptualisation in Social Science Research exploitation, production, capitalism, economic surplus and periphery to describe economic inequality in society. At least some of the concepts used and defined are unique to the particular theory. 4.2 Scope and level of abstraction of theory The scope of a theory refers to how much it explains or how many different contexts the theory can explain. For example, the frustration-aggression hypothesis can be applied to a large number of contexts. It can be applied to explain violence in the following instances: On the sports field and among spectators (the members and supporters of the losing team are more likely to be aggressive, because they are frustrated in their aim to win the game) Violence on the playground and among siblings (when children are frustrated in their aim to play with a particular toy, they are more likely to hit out at whoever monopolises that toy) Political violence (poor people are frustrated in their aim of looking after themselves and their families and, therefore, resort to violent political action) Criminal violence (unemployed youth may be frustrated with unemployment and resort to robbery, which is a violent crime as a means to make money) The scope of a theory is linked to the level of abstraction achieved by the concepts in the theory (the building blocks of the theory). The higher the level of abstraction, the more the theory can be generalised and wider its applicability. The opposite of abstract is concrete. The difference between abstract and concrete concepts can be compared to a view of a town from 10 kilometres in the sky and one that is seen up close. Abstract concepts allow us to get the big picture, but do not show much detail, whereas concrete concepts present the close-up view and allow us to focus on specific cases. “Humanity” is an abstract concept, because it refers to all of the people in the world, viewed as a general category; whereas, “Jim the plumber, whom you call to fix your blocked drain” is a concrete concept. The scope of a theory is not limited to the number of contexts explained. The “spread” of phenomena accounted for is also crucial. We pointed out that linking phenomena previously assumed unrelated and independent of each other is one of the contributions of theory. Logical reasoning plays a crucial role in uncovering dimensions of and patterns in social reality that we were previously unaware of. The scope of a theory is reflected in the forms of units or situations that the theory applies to. For instance, Stevens, cited in Sapsford et al. (1998:58), argues that, whereas attribution theory has a restricted range, psychoanalysis and social 7  Learning unit 2 | RSC2601 Theory and Conceptualisation in Social Science Research constructionism “offer principles applicable to human behaviour of almost any kind”. When considering the scope of a theory in terms of generalisability, we can distinguish between empirical generalisation, middle-range theory and theoretical frameworks. Empirical generalisations classify, summarise and organise observations. This type of generalisation is the first step towards abstraction but remains close to the concrete information the researcher has collected. The generalisability of the relationship proposed between phenomena is limited. Middle-range theory begins to organise empirical observations in a way that explains the relationships between them in more general terms. Theoretical perspectives give an overall explanation; this means that a particular study only provides partial evidence to support or question some of that perspective’s propositions (Source: Creswell, 2009; Du Plooy- Cilliers, 2015; Babbie, 2021). Do all researchers strive to obtain abstract and generalisable propositions? No, however, various social scientists argue that there is merit in attempting to provide an overall theoretical perspective, because this allows us to avoid the fragmentation of our understanding into multiple theories that are not related. 4.3 Reconsidering the relationship between theory and research When we discussed theory as a conceptual framework, we referred to the fact that theory provides researchers with scaffolding by specifying key concepts that enable them to reflect on the essential characteristics of the phenomena they study. In fact, it is naive to imagine research without some theoretical orientation. Thus, it is clear that theory plays a pervasive role in research. However, the relationship between the two is reciprocal: empirical studies are based on theory, and theories, in turn, are based on empirical studies. Let us consider this relationship: Deduction: going from the general to the specific; using general principles to suggest specific outcomes. Induction: using several specific observations to formulate general principles Babbie (2021) identifies deduction and induction as the two processes of reasoning that are used to develop theories. Deduction involves the process of testing general ideas (theory). This is done by finding out whether abstract, logical relationships apply to specific, concrete contexts. During the process of deduction, general ideas are linked to empirical evidence. In contrast, induction involves 8  Learning unit 2 | RSC2601 Theory and Conceptualisation in Social Science Research using specific and concrete observations to develop abstract, logical relationships between phenomena. Induction implies the process of building theory. In the case of induction, the researcher develops new concepts and specifies the relationships between them on the basis of the evidence collected. The evidence is generalised during this process. An example of induction is when I conclude that I am not good at ballroom dancing - since I continually step on the toes of my partner, making a fool of myself time after time. In this case, I connect several observations of the same kind of thing (my experiences of ballroom dancing) into a general statement that applies to all cases of the same thing (I am useless at ballroom dancing). Deduction is the opposite of induction. Here we start with a general statement applying to all the cases of the same thing and apply it to a specific case. For example, when I conclude that Venus (specific case) must revolve around the sun, because Venus is a planet, and all planets revolve around the sun (general statement), I am busy with deduction. Social science research goes beyond the role of verifying and testing theory. Depending on the evidence collected, general ideas can be confirmed, refined and even reformulated. New evidence generated by research can also lead to the development of new theories or refinement of older theories. 4.4 Concluding remarks on theory and research Our discussion illustrates some general features of the theory. Let us sum them up. Theory explains actual situations in social reality, not imaginary ones. Theory is a way of systematically thinking about the phenomena we observe or experience. A theory provides an indication of what we can logically expect in particular cases. Theory also provides a framework for interpreting and organising the information we have collected. But, if a theory is to do all this, it needs to be empirically testable. This empirical testability is the crucial feature that distinguishes theory from other forms of explanation. Through research, we should be able to collect evidence that either supports or questions a particular theory. We evaluate theory through evidence and reason. Theory deductively guides research, while the information obtained through research inductively builds theory. As such, theory and research are inseparable and cannot be treated as separate entities. Activity 2 After reading this section answer the following questions. 1. In your own words, explain what a theory is. 2. Using examples, explain why theory is necessary for social science research. 9  Learning unit 2 | RSC2601 Theory and Conceptualisation in Social Science Research 3. Choose a theory in your discipline and identify key concepts for the theory. 4. Using examples, provide a comparison of deduction and induction and explain how they are used in the development of theories. 5. Identify a popular theory in your discipline and explain its scope. 5. THE CONCEPTUAL GROUNDING OF RESEARCH The first step in the research is obviously to decide on a topic to research. Researchers are concerned with discovering new knowledge. Du Plooy-Cilliers et al. (2015) explain that social science research starts with identifying a problem that needs to be solved. We learn from Zain et al. (2010) that research studies are conducted because there is uncertainty about a specific phenomenon that has or has not yet occurred. As such, research is conducted to address this uncertainty. Social scientists are aware of the gaps they have in their knowledge of a particular topic, based on their review of the literature. They read existing research to see what is known and what still needs to be investigated. Also, social scientists are sometimes confronted by contradictory research findings or events that challenge existing explanations; these are both things that obviously require further research. An event that they experience or encounter through the media may spark a researcher’s interest in a certain topic. Choosing a research topic is not a decision that is made in a vacuum. Both the researcher and the context in which research is taking place have an impact on each other. Often, a topic is selected because a researcher is personally interested in finding out more about it (as we have indicated above). Zain et al. (2010) argue that personal values and interests often inform a researcher’s choice of research topic. These personal interests are necessary, since they ensure that the researcher will have the commitment and motivation to complete the project. Even positivist social scientists acknowledge the role of these influences at the initial stage of research. There are two other factors that influence the choice of a research topic: the social and scientific significance of the research topic. The social significance of the research is linked to its practical relevance. Research opportunities often arise out of pressing social issues. In this respect, the research should help to solve a specific problem. If this research is commissioned and funded by an agency or organisation that is dealing with the problem, it is often linked to policy objectives and the resolution of a problem. Can you think of any examples? Research is not only conducted to solve practical problems. Its scientific or academic significance is also important. The long-term contribution that research can make to the development of theories gives research academic significance. Research that is 10  Learning unit 2 | RSC2601 Theory and Conceptualisation in Social Science Research scientifically significant is conducted to create and develop knowledge in a certain field, regardless of its immediate practical usefulness. To summarise, there are three broad factors that influence the choice of a research topic: personal interest; the need to solve a particular problem; and the need to develop theories. The fact that a researcher is interested in a particular topic is seldom sufficient justification for the research. Any research undertaken must have practical relevance (i.e., have social significance) and/ or contribute to developing theories (i.e., have scientific significance). The presence of these three factors (researcher’s interest, social and scientific significance) will ensure that our research has some relevance on a practical and/or a theoretical level and will prevent us from choosing a trivial topic. Activity 3 Consider the research topics suggested by the following questions. Indicate whether the main objective of the proposed topic is problem-based or theory- based. 1. What is the extent of gender-based violence in Johannesburg, South Africa?’ 2. Does giving encouraging feedback improve students’ achievements? 3. Why do people conform to gender norms? 4. Should we treat others the way we would like to be treated? 6. CONDUCTING A LITERATURE REVIEW Identifying a topic or an area of interest is only the beginning. In order to narrow a topic into a researchable question is imperative to examine what previous research has found about the topic. Conducting a literature review is an important part of the research process. In the early stages of the research, the researcher must search for literature that relates to the topic they seek to explore. However, this is not an easy task, because searching for literature requires a skill. As such, it is important that the researcher is familiar with databases where they can access reliable academic sources, such as published journal articles and books. Du Plooy-Cilliers et al. (2015) argue that conducting a proper literature review may take time, because the researcher has to read widely and extensively, to get an in-depth understanding of what has been said about the topic they want to research. However, taking the time to gather information, relevant to the research topic, will provide a platform for the researcher to identify gaps and formulate the research questions and problem statement more clearly. Read the excerpt below from article by Bayane (2021), in Community, Work and Family, entitled “‘Sister-Madam’: Family members navigating hiring of relatives as domestic 11  Learning unit 2 | RSC2601 Theory and Conceptualisation in Social Science Research workers in Nkowankowa, Limpopo”. It is an example of a literature review. This article deals with the experiences of family members, who hire their relatives as domestic workers. The research question that the study sought to answer is: How do black women, hiring relatives as domestic workers, navigate work and family relations in family domestic work in Nkowankowa, Limpopo? ‘Sister-Madam’: family members navigating hiring of relatives as domestic workers in Nkowankowa, Limpopo P Bayane Since the seminal work of Cock (1989), domestic work has gained scholarly attention in South Africa, with most studies helping to give insight into the evolution of the domestic work sector, transitions into a sector dominated by black women, and the challenges experienced (Ally, 2009; Cock, 1989; Fish, 2006; Ginsburg, 2000; Grant, 1997; King, 2007). The domestic work sector in South Africa is traced back to colonialism and remnants of the practices of apartheid, in that it was dominated by non-related black women working as domestic workers. According to Cock (1989), domestic work during the colonial and apartheid era in South Africa, was associated with challenges such as poor working conditions. Cock (1989) further stipulates that various challenges within the domestic work sector were facilitated by the sector not being regulated by the Department of Labour. However, the end of apartheid has resulted in the process of regulating the domestic work sector in South Africa (Ally, 2009). The regulation of the domestic work sector occurred through the implementation of regulations and rules to address aspects such as a minimum wage, employment contracts between domestic workers and their employers and working conditions (Ally, 2009; Department of Labour, 2017). In post-apartheid South Africa, the domestic work sector is regulated specifically by the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA; Act 75 of 1997) and Sectoral Determination 7 (Ally, 2009), which emphasises the protection of domestic workers’ rights and seeks to balance the relationship between domestic workers and their employers (Ally, 2009; Magwaza, 2008; Mbatha, 2003). Although the domestic work sector is regulated, studies continue to report the exploitation and oppression of domestic workers, and this has been observed in black families as well (Dilata, 2010; Magwaza, 2008; Zungu, 2009). In his study, Tolla (2013) suggests that domestic workers in rural areas are exposed to poor work relationships and work conditions. Research illustrates that domestic workers in rural areas lack access to information related to labour laws; hence, exploitation is inevitable (Grossman, 2004). Similarly, Maqubela (2016) conducted a study on domestic workers in black families in rural areas, and the study suggests that domestic workers are working under exploitative conditions such as long hours and low-paid wages. Likewise, exploitation is prevalent in urban areas, but domestic workers there have access to support systems such as unions (Ally, 2009), while 12  Learning unit 2 | RSC2601 Theory and Conceptualisation in Social Science Research Tolla (2013) argues that domestic workers in rural areas resort to silence to deal with exploitative working conditions in the domestic work sector. The domestic work sector remains exploitative, with hierarchies between employers and employees, despite the efforts to balance powers through regulation (Maqubela, 2016). According to Bozalek (1999), reciprocal care was a common practice among black families during apartheid. Family members, such as aunts and grandparents, offered their help with taking care of the children, in the absence of their parents, and such caring was exercised without remuneration. Mosoetsa (2011) also indicates that, even in post- apartheid South Africa, families continue to show reciprocal care through sharing resources for economic survival. In her study, Mosoetsa (2011) suggests that, among black families, it is the norm for family members to offer help to each other, especially in times of need, such as when someone is unemployed. Looking at what the literature says about a topic introduces the researcher to the debates and arguments surrounding this topic. This enables the researcher to gain insight into the topic and identify the key issues that must be explored. You will see that many of the things we identify here as crucial for a literature review also form part of the theoretical aspect of research. Reviewing the literature means that the researcher reads both theory and the research it has generated. The literature review is a useful source of questions, since it identifies gaps in knowledge, shows potential pitfalls, and helps us avoid unnecessary duplication by showing us what has been covered already. It also enables us to assess researchers’ contributions to a field of study. The literature review, therefore, plays a crucial role in determining both the feasibility and credibility of the research. It places the research in a broad framework and provides a foundation and justification for further research. The researcher is challenged to think about how his or her work extends, modifies, supports or challenges that of others. Activity 4 After reading this section, answer the following question: 1. In your own words, explain the purpose of the literature review in social science research. 2. How are themes derived from a literature review? 7. FORMULATING A RESEARCH QUESTION It should be apparent from the discussion of the literature review that there are a number of issues that can be dealt with and studied in any particular topic that is chosen. Initially a researcher should not immediately formulate a specific research question when approaching a particular topic. This will be too limiting. However, 13  Learning unit 2 | RSC2601 Theory and Conceptualisation in Social Science Research eventually the researcher will have to clearly specify a research question. This is very important. If the research cannot be delimited to specific “what” or “why” question, chances are that the eventual research will be hopelessly muddled. At what stage in the research process this question emerges depends on the researcher’s knowledge, the aim of the research and the approach chosen. Creswell and Clark (2018) explain that, in explanatory research, the question is specified much sooner than in exploratory research. Feasibility is, of course, crucial. Many novice researchers make the mistake of trying to research more than is reasonably manageable. The researcher may be able to identify many appropriate research questions, but the time and resources available may well limit the investigation. Some research questions can be made more manageable by breaking them up into parts. Specifying the question enables the researcher to identify the essence of the research. This ensures that the researcher has clarity on what needs to be done and that he or she focuses on the question to be answered. There is a considerable amount of thinking before the actual doing of the research. The researcher reflects on what has been asked and what needs to be found out. Can you see how Bayane (2021) supports his questions by referring to the literature on the topic and indicating what he expects to find out, on the basis of these theoretical insights? This highlights the importance of knowing how to answer research questions as a social science researcher. It is not sufficient to just formulate a research question, but the researcher should also know how they will answer the question that they pose. Once the problem has been specified and the goal of the research is clear, several questions can be used to structure the research. Specifying a research problem forces us to start thinking about how we will conduct the research and whether it will be possible. Creswell and Clark (2018) explain that the nature of the evidence required, and the questions asked determine what research methodology is used — either quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods. In the remainder of this learning unit, we shall concentrate on quantitative research. In quantitative research, a topic is formulated as a specific research question. Research cannot be undertaken without a clearly constructed question. Propositions logically related in theories (see our discussion above where we said that theories consist of propositions that are connected in a logical manner) are refined into specific researchable statements, namely hypotheses. In the process, key constructs are operationalised. This allows the researcher to test or scrutinise the claims made, to see if they can be applied to a particular case. 14  Learning unit 2 | RSC2601 Theory and Conceptualisation in Social Science Research In quantitative research, we intend to establish causal connections between things. Our hypotheses are, therefore, constructed to be able to reflect such connections. Causal explanations identify a cause-and-effect relationship between phenomena. Four conditions need to be met to establish whether a causal relationship exists between phenomena: First, the cause should become apparent or change in some way before the effect, or any change in the effect, is observed. This suggests that there should be a time delay between the cause and the effect. Second, the variation (change) in the phenomena linked should occur in both the cause and the effect. This suggests that the cause and effect are associated. However, we must make sure that no spurious factors are operating. Because, if such factors are operating, the assumed relationship between the cause and effect will then be false. The third condition, therefore, is that all possible factors influencing the relationship between the phenomena linked must be taken into consideration. By eliminating all other possible explanations, we can have more confidence that there is a cause- and-effect relationship between the phenomena. All three of these conditions, mentioned above, need to be met before we can establish causality. However, the third condition, namely that we should exclude alternatives, is never complete. It is an ongoing process, because new explanations continue to crop up as our knowledge develops. Fourth, the rationale for the proposed relationship between phenomena should be based on careful reasoning. Activity 5 Consider the research question below and answer the questions that follow. How do young unemployed graduates, between the ages of 24 and 30, experience poverty in rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa? Is the research question specific? Is the research question researchable? 8. FORMULATING A HYPOTHESIS A hypothesis is a tentative statement of the relationship between two or more variables. In many ways, this statement is an informed guess that indicates what we can expect to find in our research. We, thus, start to think about possible answers to the questions we 15  Learning unit 2 | RSC2601 Theory and Conceptualisation in Social Science Research ask, right from the moment we start formulating them. In this respect, the literature review is particularly useful. By relying on our own observation, reading previous research conducted by other researchers and the various theories available, we can get a good indication of what we expect the outcome of the research to be. Of course, we are not suggesting that the answer to the problem is a foregone conclusion. If this was the case, there would be no point in conducting the research. Nevertheless, Kitchel and Ball (2014) argue that a meaningful theoretical framework enables the researcher to identify those factors that are most likely to have a bearing on the particular problem being studied. In formulating testable statements, any vagueness hidden in the question has to be eliminated. To meet the requirement of testability, the researcher is compelled to be specific, precise and clear (unambiguous). The hypothesis is such a formal statement related to a particular context. This enables researchers to gather information to empirically determine whether the proposed relationship applies or not. Bloomfield and Fisher (2019) hold that the hypothesis plays a crucial role in research, particularly quantitative, because it directs or focuses the researcher’s attention to phenomena and the relationship between them. In this respect, the hypothesis guides the research by identifying the evidence required. Consider the following hypothesis: The higher the degree of residential segregation, the greater the collective identification. Why would we regard this statement as a hypothesis? Because it suggests a specific relationship between two phenomena — residential segregation and collective identification. Residential segregation is the phenomenon, whereby people of different races or ethnic groups live in separate residential areas. This creates a phenomenon we call "proximity", which refers to the fact that people, who are similar, live closely together. Collective identification is the extent to which people see themselves as belonging to a specific group, such as white or black. This statement clearly suggests what we can expect in certain circumstances. This makes sense, because we would expect people to interact more frequently and to share experiences if they live in close proximity. All these factors are influenced by the values: used here to mean measurement of amount, quantity or degree of residential segregation experienced. But, is this proposed relationship testable? Yes, because we can compare more segregated residential areas with less segregated ones. Note that we are also assuming here that collective identity is observable and measurable. We discuss operationalisation (making concepts measurable) in the next section of this learning unit. 16  Learning unit 2 | RSC2601 Theory and Conceptualisation in Social Science Research Linking these two phenomena only makes sense if it is possible to identify a pattern, for example, that the one increases if the other decreases, or vice versa. This suggests potential variability (change) in the two phenomena that are related to each other. In order to account for this, it is necessary that the concepts that are connected be defined in the form of variables. A variable is a concept that has characteristics that can change, that is, take more than one value. These values can change quantitatively or qualitatively. For example, “degree of residential segregation” reflects a quantitative change. In some areas, residential segregation may be high, whereas in others it may be low. In contrast, religious affiliation reflects a qualitative change, for example from Hindu to Muslim or Christian. It should be clear that a variable should at least imply two possibilities, in order to reflect some change from one case to another. An example is the variable “sex”, which has two possible values, “male” and “female”. We have repeatedly stated that variables are related to each other. When the researcher suggests that there is a causal relationship between the two, this means that the researcher believes that one variable influences the other. This implies that one variable changes in some way, before the other one does. We have listed the criteria for causality above. As far as the hypothesis is concerned, we distinguish between the dependent variable and independent variable. The dependent variable (effect) is explained by the independent variable (cause). In a research hypothesis, the direction of the relationship between the two variables is also frequently stated. In our example, we have stated that there is a positive relationship between the degree of residential segregation and the strength of collective identification. This means that we are assuming that these two variables change together, in the same direction. In other words, when residential segregation decreases, we expect the strength of collective identification to decrease. If we suggest that the relationship between variables is negative, this means that we believe the two variables change in opposite ways. For instance, it can be suggested that the stronger the social bonds between people, the lower the rate of suicides due to depression in society. Deciding which variable is the dependent or independent variable is not always easy, careful reasoning is needed. In our example, the dependent variable is collective identification, and the independent variable is residential segregation. In another hypothesis, collective identification may be the independent variable. An example of such a hypothesis would read as follows: The greater the collective identification the higher the intergroup conflict. Can you see that we would logically regard the degree of collective identification to determine the extent of intergroup conflict in this instance? If people strongly identify with their own group, it is likely that they will be suspicious of outsiders; thus, making conflict with outsiders more likely. The research topics that 17  Learning unit 2 | RSC2601 Theory and Conceptualisation in Social Science Research social scientists study are complex and multidimensional. A hypothesis only tests a specific relationship. Often, several hypotheses are linked to each other. Activity 6 Consider the following hypothesis: Women are more in favour of birth control than men. 1. What are the two variables in this hypothesis? 2. Identify the independent variable. 9. OPERATIONALISING CONCEPTS As abstract ideas, concepts play a crucial role in the communication between social scientists. It is imperative that the concepts used in a research project are clearly defined, because their meaning is by no means always obvious. Do you remember our discussion on poverty and the distinction drawn between absolute poverty and relative poverty. As we saw, there are differences in the way social scientists use concepts and the way the public use concepts; we also pointed out that social scientists may define concepts differently, depending on the theoretical approach they follow. Conceptual clarity is crucial, because concepts structure our observation. According to Creswell (2014), the process of conceptualisation has to do with defining the terminology that is used in a statement of the problem or hypothesis that can be tested in such a way that there is no possibility of misunderstanding what it refers to. Doing research requires that we observe what we intend to study. Once we have defined concepts clearly, and know what we are looking for, we have to start thinking about how to measure them. This brings us to the process of operationalisation, that is, making our defined concepts measurable. The empirical basis of social science depends on our ability to measure key concepts to determine “their occurrence, strength and frequency” (Babbie, 2021). Operationalisation involves transforming a theoretical concept into an empirical variable. We have said that a variable is an empirical representation of an abstract concept. The operationalisation of a concept, such as ‘sex’, is quite straightforward. With constructs (highly abstract concepts), such as indicators, an observable measure of a variable or concept alienation is more difficult to operationalise. Before we can operationalise such a complex concept, we need to cover all the aspects or dimensions of the concept. For instance, alienation is operationalised by identifying all its dimensions. These are powerlessness, meaninglessness, normlessness, social isolation and self- estrangement. These dimensions are called indicators. The indicators are derived from definitions which are again related to theory. An indicator is an observable measure. It is essential to specify indicators that provide an accurate measurement of the variable. Let us go back to our example of alienation. Here, the indicator “powerlessness” is, for 18  Learning unit 2 | RSC2601 Theory and Conceptualisation in Social Science Research instance, measured by looking at the role played in decision making. Powerless people tend to be left out of the decision-making process; this is something we can observe. Operationalisation helps us to avoid any “looseness” when we measure concepts by propelling us to specify the indicators precisely (Babbie, 2021). A crucial part of research is the conceptualising and operationalising of core concepts. These two processes determine how we view a particular phenomenon and have a fundamental impact on the conclusions we draw from our research. The following diagram summarises the link between concepts and indicators in the context of a hypothesis. The hypothesis is as follows: Social class is positively related to political conservatism. In other words, the higher a person’s socio-economic status (that is, the richer and better educated they are), the more conservative they will be. On the theoretical level Political Social class conservatis m Level of education Opposed to welfare Income provision Occupation At the level of Opposed to government concrete regulating business Prestige measurement Supports Party X DIAGRAM 2.1 The link between concepts and indicators (Adapted from: Farden (1973:57)) In this diagram, we start with a relationship between two concepts (social class and conservatism). To make this relationship concretely measurable, we need to operationalise the two concepts. This is done with reference to indicators such as level of education, in the one case, and attitude towards welfare provision in the other. Activity 7 1. Choose a topic of your own in a social science discipline that you believe is worth researching. 2. Identify key issues or problems linked to the topic. 3. Formulate a specific research question for one problem. 19  Learning unit 2 | RSC2601 Theory and Conceptualisation in Social Science Research 4. Frame a hypothesis linked to the research question. 5. Identify the variables. 6. Operationalise the concepts used. 10. CONCLUSIONS This learning unit was concerned with familiarising students with theory and how it operates in the social sciences. Significant attention was given to the role that theory plays in the research process, with particular emphasis on how it informs conceptualisation in social research. The purpose of a literature review to social science research was taken into account, and examples were provided on how a review of literature shapes the identification of a research topic. The learning unit further explored the process of formulating research questions and hypotheses. The concluding section of the learning unit paid attention to the crucial process of operationalising concepts. 11. SELF-EVALUATION ASSESSMENT This section aims to test your level of understanding of the content presented in this learning unit/lesson. Are you able to: define a theory explain how theories are developed in the social sciences explain the role of theory in social science research explain the role of a theory and provide examples identify and define concepts describe the scope of a theory and provide meaningful examples describe the level of abstraction of a theory differentiate between deduction and induction identify a research problem choose a research topic describe the factors that influence the choice of a research topic formulate a research question explain the purpose of a literature review in qualitative and quantitative research write a brief literature review on a particular topic formulate a hypothesis identify independent and dependent variables operationalise concepts 20  Learning unit 2 | RSC2601 Theory and Conceptualisation in Social Science Research 12. ADDITIONAL LEARNING EXPERIENCES This section aims to enhance your learning experience on some of the learning outcomes addressed in this learning unit/lesson. 12.1 YouTube links The purpose of the literature review https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nqzcfw1wDE The role of theory in research https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVXKXJWTMXc How to write a literature review: 3 minute step-by-step guide https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIYC6zG265E 6 steps to formulate a STRONG hypothesis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCgLjDDD4ek Independent and dependent variables made easy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VdOB4JJE_8 Conceptualization and operationalization https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmxcKdMd2is How to develop a conceptual framework https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnfRdTCUIsc 12.2 OERs Chijioke, O.C., & Ikechukwu, A. 2021. Understanding theory in social science research: Public administration in perspective. Teaching Public Administration, 39(2): 156-174. Davis, C. 2020. A quick guide to quantitative research in the social sciences. Wales Academy of Professional Practice and Applied Research. 21  Learning unit 2 | RSC2601 Theory and Conceptualisation in Social Science Research https://repository.uwtsd.ac.uk/id/eprint/1540/18/A%20quick%20guide%20to%20qu antitative%20research%20in%20the%20social%20sciences.pdf Kivunja, C. 2018. Distinguishing between theory, theoretical framework, and conceptual framework: A systematic review of lessons from the field. International Journal of Higher Education, 7(6): 44-53. 13. REFERENCES Babbie, E. 2021. The practice of social research. 15th edition. Boston: Cengage Learning. Bayane, P. 2021. “Sister-Madam”: Family members navigating hiring of relatives as domestic workers in Nkowankowa, Limpopo. Community, Work & Family, 26(1): 45-57. Bloomfield, J., & Fisher, M.J. 2019. Quantitative research design. Journal of Australasian Rehabilitation Nurses Association”, 22(2): 27-30. Creswell, J.W., & Clark, V.P. 2018. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 3rd edition. California: Sage. Creswell, J.W. 2014. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 4th edition. Los Angeles: Sage. Creswell, J.W. 2014. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 4th edition. Los Angeles: Sage. Dollard, J., Miller, N.E., Doob, L.W., Mowrer, O.H., & Sears, R.R. 1939. Frustration and aggression. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Du Plooy-Cilliers, F., Davis, C., & Bezuidenhout, R. 2014. Research matters. Cape Town: Juta. Goffman, E. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the management of a spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs N.J: Prentice-Hall Inc. Farden, C. (ed). 1973. Society today. Del Mar: CRM Books. 22  Learning unit 2 | RSC2601 Theory and Conceptualisation in Social Science Research Kitchen, T., & Ball, A.L. 2014. Quantitative theoretical and conceptual framework use in agricultural education research. Journal of Agricultural Education, 55(1): 186-199. Zain, S.D., Ab-Rahman, M.S., Ihsan, A.K., Zahrim, A., Nor, M.J., Zain, M.M., Hipni, N.L.R., & Ghopa, W.A. 2011. Motivation for research and publication: Experience as a researcher and academic. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, 1: 213-219. 23