content analysis

[DISCLAIMER: The following post in no way discourages the practice of social theory. In fact, we need more of it and it needs to be better. I teach social theory courses and much of my work is entirely theoretical. The following is strictly about the relationship between theory and empirical work.]

I’ll get right to the point here: sometimes social problems don’t need a theoretical framework. Sometimes it’s okay to simply conduct program/policy evaluation research and it need not require a discussion of an academic theoretical school of thought. And it should be published in sociology journals.

While sociology has a rich tradition of theorists, we also have a history of drawing social reformers and journalists into our ranks. These scholars were far more concerned with developing explanations for and solutions to contemporary social problems. The idea that an esoteric academic theory would have to be affixed to a straightforward study of inequality, for example, to legitimize it as sociology was non-existent. Today, we have an obsession with attaching theory to everything (although that almost always means mid-range theory). The term particularly in vogue is “sociological puzzle” — whatever that means.

To use a concrete example, I believe the question, “what were the consequences of the 1996 welfare reform for families and children?” is plainly sociological. It requires neither an explanation of why it is sociology nor does it need to be embedded in a larger theoretical discussion of the power of states. And yet, those very comments were recently directed at the paper of a student I know. Now, of course, it is essential to acknowledge prior research, but it need not be immensely theoretical stuff.

I suspect that some of these issues result from ongoing problem of calling empirical claims theory of the mid-range. Additionally, many journals oriented toward social problems seem to have an insecurity about being under-theorized. But those are different discussions.