Comparison of theory
A Comparison of theories (also: Comparison of theories ) is the comparison of two or more theories , especially in terms of their descriptive and explanatory power. Since the subject of investigation consists of theories, a theory comparison makes metatheoretical statements.
aims
The general aim of the theory comparison is to reveal relations between the compared theories.
The specific intention with which this is done can vary widely. The spectrum is wide: while Critical Rationalism claims it is about weeding out unsuitable theories, Thomas S. Kuhn says theories, if they do not follow the same paradigms, are incommensurable , i.e. incomparable.
The theory comparison can provide ideas to improve or expand one's own theoretical approach.
Often it is the goal of theory comparisons to better describe the "theoretical landscape", that is to dismantle the apparent theoretical pluralism, to uncover implicit traditions of theories, i. H. Sort theories by similarity to groups.
It is also a possible goal to compare theories with a complementary purpose; H. Combine non-mutually exclusive theories or theory components (theorems, hypotheses) into a more comprehensive, better theory.
Choice of theories
Since for practical reasons only a few theories can often be compared, a decision has to be made on the selection. This decision is important because the theories that are not selected tend to be excluded from further discussion and thus from competition with other theories. The choice of theories is highly goal-dependent.
For proponents of the incommensurability thesis, who assume that theories of different paradigms are incomparable, the choice seems very limited. However, it has been pointed out that one can also compare incommensurable theories, because even if the terms cannot be translated into one another, the same observation situations or experiments can still be the basis for a comparison.
Determination of the relation
The comparison of theories can serve to reveal the relationships between the theories being compared, ie to determine, among other things, whether the theories are complementary, replaceable or competing with one another.
Comparison criteria
When compared, theories are described, judged, and sometimes explained. The description shows the various components of the theory and the statements made therein. The assessment names the strengths and weaknesses of the theories compared; Above all, the relative descriptive and explanatory power of theories is assessed. Comparisons of theories also attempt to explain the origin of the theories examined; For this purpose, the sociology of knowledge or the sociology of science is often used .
In all these steps, the comparator must inevitably start from a standard. Theoretical comparisons cannot be made from a “neutral” position, but are inevitably based on a certain epistemological standpoint, which must be disclosed.
Types of comparison
Implicit and explicit comparison
In the case of an implicit comparison of theories, there is no need to expressly (“explicitly”) compare the components of the theories and to specify the rules and procedures of the comparison. This means that an implicit theory comparison is the simpler variant that often occurs in everyday scientific work.
The explicit comparison of theories compares theories whose components have been expressly formulated (possibly interpreted by the comparing person) using certain expressly disclosed rules. This much more complex variant occurs much less often.
Logical and empirical comparison
Logical comparison
There are different understandings of what a logical (or analytical) comparison entails.
The logical comparison or test in the narrower sense is about the elaboration of the relative logical quality of the compared theories, each of the two theories is tested for its scientific quality (e.g. for consistency, degree of simplicity, coherence) and then the results compared.
The logical comparison of theories in the broader sense also includes the goals and knowledge interests, the basic assumptions and values, the design of the object of investigation, the basic terms, the type of their statements, the explanatory claim and the explanatory strategy, the measurement concepts, the range, the degree of generality and the thinking styles.
Empirical comparison
The empirical comparison of theories also includes empirical data and checks which theory fits better with the empirical data. Depending on the relationship between the theories, it is possible to work out their relative empirical quality.
Different complex shapes are possible here, which can be combined. In this way, the empirical evidence offered by the theories themselves can be checked for agreement with their statements. Empirical evidence from other sources can also be used ( secondary analyzes ) or empirical data can be obtained.
Dialogic comparison
When theories are compared, there is always the risk that one of the theories will be preferred and form the benchmark. In order to avoid this problem, dialogical forms of comparison have been discussed.
Dealing with the results of the comparison of theories
Depending on the type of relationship determined, the theories can be dealt with in different ways; they can be rejected or accepted, made more precise, changed, i.e. reformulated or supplemented partial statements, or combined to form new theories.
When integrating theories, there should actually be points of contact between the theories. The theoretical value of the combined variables should be clarified.
Different forms are conceivable for combining theories . Liska distinguishes between the following ideal types :
- "Up-and-down or deductive integration" : when a theory B is absorbed in another A, since A offers more general concepts and terms. - The classic form of integration. This form is common in the natural sciences but difficult to achieve in the social sciences;
- "Side-by-side or horizontal integration" : the theories stand side by side, explain different subject areas, sometimes overlap. - The simplest form of integration;
- “End-to-end or sequential integration” : such a close connection between theories that previously independent variables of some of the old theories now become dependent or intervening variables of the new, integrated theory.
literature
- Opp, Karl-Dieter / Wippler, Reinhard (ed.): Empirical comparison of theories. Explanations of social behavior in problematic situations. Opladen: West German publishing house. Opladen 1990. ISBN 3531121251 . (A classic well worth reading, written quite understandably for sociologists; but not completely new and since then the discussion has of course continued.)
- Seipel, Christian: Strategies and problems of empirical comparison of theories in the social sciences. Rational Choice Theory or Personality Theory? Leske + Budrich. Opladen 1999. ISBN 3810024864 . (Very reflective, evaluates many contributions to the discussion on the methodology of theoretical comparisons and makes his own rather differentiated proposal, which of course has to be worked on further (it could also be more stringent).)
- Haller, Max: Sociological theory in a systematic-critical comparison . 2nd, revised edition. VS publishing house for social sciences. Wiesbaden 2006. ISBN 3810034681 . (Comprehensive comparison of theories, very up-to-date (from 2003), looks primarily at the major paradigms in sociology and less individual theories. However, mostly logically, only marginally empirical. So more breadth at the expense of (empirical) depth. Written quite understandably . More oriented towards the sociology of science than the other titles.)
Individual evidence
- ^ Rainer Greshoff: Enlightenment and integration of the variety of theories through methodical comparisons of theories - the Esser-Luhmann debate as an example . In: Andreas Balog / Johann August Schülein (ed.): Sociology, a multiparadigmatic science. Need for knowledge or transition stage? . Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften 2008, 189
- ↑ Thomas Biebricher: Self-criticism of modernity. Foucault and Habermas in comparison . Frankfurt / Main: Campus 2005, 21
- ↑ Sandra Hüpping: Determinants of Deviant Behavior. An empirical comparison of theories between anomie theory and the theory of planned behavior . Münster: LIT Verlag 2005, 15
- ↑ Marcel M. Baumann / Thorsten Bonacker: For a theoretical dialogue without forced decision-making. Use and limits of a case-related comparison of theories from the perspective of empirical conflict research . In: Thorsten Bonacker / Rainer Greshoff / Uwe Schimank (eds.): Social theories in comparison: The Northern Ireland conflict as an application . Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften 2008, 229
- ↑ Heino Hollstein-Brinkmann: Possibilities of the interparadigmatic comparison . In: Heino Hollstein-Brinkmann / Silvia Staub-Bernasconi (Ed.): System theories in comparison. What do systems theories do for social work? Attempt a dialogue . Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 23
- ↑ Heino Hollstein-Brinkmann: Possibilities of the interparadigmatic comparison . In: Heino Hollstein-Brinkmann / Silvia Staub-Bernasconi (Ed.): System theories in comparison. What do systems theories do for social work? Attempt a dialogue . Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 30
- ^ Rainer Greshoff: Enlightenment and integration of the variety of theories through methodical comparisons of theories - the Esser-Luhmann debate as an example . In: Andreas Balog / Johann August Schülein (ed.): Sociology, a multiparadigmatic science. Need for knowledge or transition stage? . Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften 2008, 189
- ↑ Heino Hollstein-Brinkmann: Possibilities of the interparadigmatic comparison . In: Heino Hollstein-Brinkmann / Silvia Staub-Bernasconi (Ed.): System theories in comparison. What do systems theories do for social work? Attempt a dialogue . Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 29
- ↑ Liska 1989, reproduction from Seipel, Christian (1999): strategies and problems of empirical comparison of theories in the social sciences , p. 37 ff.