sign in sign up
<<
Home , Scholar, Scholarly method

20 Knowl. Org. 30(2003)No.1 R. Szostak: Classifying Scholarly and Methods

Classifying Scholarly Theories and Methods

Rick Szostak

Department of Economics, of Alberta, Edmonton, T6G 2H4, CANADA

Rick Szostak is of Economics and Associate Dean of Arts for Interdisciplinary and International Studies at the University of Alberta, where he has taught since receiving his PhD from Northwestern University in 1985. He is the author of five books and twenty articles. This paper is part of a larger project which explores the possibility of classifying phenomena, data, theories, methods, critiques of scientific practice, and types of ethical analysis, and then explores how these classifications can aid both research and teaching.

Szostak, Rick. (2003). Classifying Scholarly Theories and Methods. Organization, 30(1). 20-35. 35 refs.

ABSTRACT: This paper develops a simple yet powerful typology of scholarly , based on the 5W questions: “Who?”, “What?”, “Where?”, “When?”, and “Why?”. It also develops a list of the twelve distinct methods used by . These are then evaluated in terms of the 5W questions. Classifying theory types and methods allows scholars and students to better appreciate the advantages and disadvantages of different theory types and methods. Classifications of theory and method can and should be important components of a system for classifying scholarly documents. Researchers and students are presently limited in their ability to search by theory type or method. As a result, scholars often “re-invent” previous research of which they were unaware.

1. Introduction. larship. Second, it should provide some theoretical order to the classification. This would aid efforts to Classification is the essential first step in . identify the strengths and weaknesses of different ty- Chemical reactions cannot be analysed unless one pes of scholarship. Both goals could potentially be chemical element is first distinguished from another, achieved either with a unidimensional classification atomic reactions cannot be comprehended without or with a multidimensional typology; both will be some sense of subatomic particles, nor can the charac- utilized below. teristics associated with creativity be identified This paper argues that it is not only highly desira- without some sense of personality dimensions. Classi- ble but quite feasible to classify types of scholarship. fication of scholarship itself is likewise essential to its In order to do so, the concept of scholarship must study. first be “unpacked” – to use a phrase favored by rea- Whether some types of scholarship are better than list philosophers – into its constituent parts. The next others, or whether different types of scholarship are section discusses the advantages for this enterprise of best suited to different purposes, can hardly be asked a simple yet powerful 5W typology, in which the in an intelligible fashion without first classifying ty- “Who?”, “What?”, “Where?”, “When?”, and “Why?” pes of scholarship. Less obviously, enquiries about questions are asked.1 When these questions are ap- the very possibility and limitations of scholarly en- plied to scholarship itself, phenomena/data, theory, quiry would benefit from such a classification, just as method, and scholarly practice are identified as the the periodic table aids those who wonder what che- key components of scholarship. This paper will focus micals can do. A classification of scholarship should on theory and method. These are, arguably, the two possess two qualities. First, it should identify an ex- aspects of scholarship that are most in need of classi- haustive set of types of scholarship. This would pro- fication. The third section of the paper develops and vide insight into the possibilities and limits of scho- applies a 5W typology of theory. The fourth section Knowl. Org. 30(2003)No.1 21 R. Szostak: Classifying Scholarly Theories and Methods provides a list of the twelve scholarly methods, and ce between the phenomena that scholars aspire to then discusses how the 5W questions help to identify study and the data that they actually encounter could the strengths and weaknesses of these. The fifth secti- also be investigated. on discusses the practicality and advantages of using “Why is the investigating that?” The ans- these classifications in systems of document classifica- wer, at least in principle, is that they hope to enhance tion. The sixth section provides concluding remarks. their understanding (or perhaps “interpretation”) of some aspect of the subject(s) being studied. Scholars 2. A Simple Classificatory Guideline organize their understanding in terms of theories. A particular investigation may be designed to derive, At each stage of this investigation the five questions: test, and/or apply theories, and these theories may “Who?”, “What?”, “Where?”, “When?”, and “Why?” involve the definition of particular phenomena or can be asked. One desideratum of a classificatory sy- (more commonly) explication of links among these. stem is that it helps users to remember diverse classes This paper will identify the various types of theory and where they fit. Since the 5W approach is familiar, that might be employed in scholarly investigation. this sort of typology is ideally suited to the recall As noted above, a “How?” question can often sub- function. It will be shown that this simple device is stitute for “Where?” and “When?” questions. “How is also well suited to guiding scholars to ask and answer the scholar conducting the investigation?” All scho- interesting questions about scholarship.2 The logical lars employ one or more of a fairly small set of me- nature of a 5W typology protects against the danger thods. Since there are scarcely a dozen of these, an of “reification”, or creating false categories that come exhaustive and manageable list will be presented be- to be viewed as real. The 5W typology has the further low. The strengths and weaknesses of each could then advantage that five dimensions are quite manageable be investigated. in scope. “Who is doing the investigation?” So far, the 5W In addition to the 5W questions, scholars often ask questions have guided the classification of familiar “How?” Philosophers, though, often distinguish scho- elements of scholarly practice: phenomena, data, larly approaches as to whether they are focussed on theories, and methods. The “Who?” question turns “Why?” or “How?”. This suggests that “How?” is ac- the focus on scholars themselves, and invites a classi- tually a combination of (some of) the other four Ws. fication of (critiques of) scientific practice (see Szo- It has been noted that when interviewers ask people a stak, 2003b). This may unnerve those who cling to “How?” question, they are generally rewarded with a the ideal that scholarly research is an entirely objecti- chronology of “When?” and “Where?” a process oc- ve pursuit. However, the past few decades have wit- curred (Goldenberg, 1992, 118). “How?” will thus be nessed several attacks on this and related ideals. It is treated as a substitute for “When/Where” questions now widely appreciated that scholars deviate to vary- in what follows. ing degrees from a selfless and objective pursuit of The analysis has proceeded so far by referring to understanding. the rather uncongenial formulation of “types of scho- larship”. Since scholarship is a complex process, it is 3. Classifying Types of Theory hardly surprising that little analysis has been carried out at this level. If the 5W questions are asked of With respect to both phenomena and methods, it is scholarly investigation in general, the classificatory possible, at least in principle, to enumerate all phe- enterprise can be broken into an exhaustive handful nomena of interest to, and methods used by, scholars. of key components. These in turn can be defined in In the case of theory, new theories are invented every more congenial terms. day, and thus an exhaustive enumeration is impossi- Of any scholarly investigation, it can be asked, ble. Moreover, casual inspection tells us that there are “What is the scholar(s) investigating?” Every investi- thousands upon thousands of theories used by scho- gation looks at something(s), be it chemicals or per- lars.3 Nor is there one obvious single dimension along sonality characteristics or art. These things can be cal- which these can be arrayed and then grouped into a led “phenomena”. Ideally, then, an exhaustive list of manageable number of “theory types”.4 This being the phenomena of interest to scholars (which should the case, development of a typology of theory will be include all phenomena of interest to non-scholars), particularly important. would be provided and placed within some orderly structure (see Szostak 2000, 2003). The corresponden- 22 Knowl. Org. 30(2003)No.1 R. Szostak: Classifying Scholarly Theories and Methods

3.1. Who? dual particles or bodies that are presumed to act as a single unit. All theories must deal with at least one . Groups of Individuals: Talcott Parsons hypothe- Most generally theories deal with how one or more sized four types of social group worthy of analysis phenomena influence one or more others. Less com- (see Freidheim 1982). The “family” and “community” monly, scholars theorize about the nature or internal- both operate, he argued, non-formally, and would ly generated transformations in one phenomenon. In thus be the sort of group that would be captured he- either case theories discuss how changes – perhaps re. As Parsons recognized, in the study of an organi- just relative to some hypothesized alternative – in one zation, which formally structures group processes, a (set of) phenomenon will affect either itself or other mixture of non-intentional and intentional analysis phenomena. might be necessary. The “Who?” question can be restated as “Who is Statistical mechanics deals with distributions of ve- effecting change?” Any theory must grapple with locities among groups of particles. The magnitudes “agency” at this level, for in specifying the initiating that are important are group averages. Natural scien- “change” which generates other changes, the instiga- tists have long distinguished these sorts of theories tor of change must be identified. If a theory addresses from the individual-agent analysis discussed above. A the effects of aggressive behavior it should specify perennial question in physics is how these two types whose behavior. Two important distinctions must be of theories might be tied together, and whether ana- made here. The first involves whether the agent is ca- lysis at the group level reflects either a physical reali- pable of intentional behavior. Non-Intentional Agents ty or ignorance about how individual particles inte- provide most of the subject matter of the natural ract. . Atoms and chemicals and even tornados Relationships. Some “interactionist” scholars ar- cannot have intentions. Biologists, at least, often in- gue that what happens between people is more im- vestigate intentionality. Social most often portant than what happens within them. Barnes deal with intentional agents, but far from always. No- (1995) speaks of individuals being “reconstituted” te in particular that institutions and organizations, through their interaction with others. These scholars though created through human intentionality, can thus theorize about the effects that various types of then exert influences non-intentionally. Within both human relationship have. While there are obvious intentionality and non-intentionality, it is useful to overlaps with the study of groups, the focus is on per- distinguish different types of agent. The following sonal interactions rather than group processes. three different types of agent are most readily com- The analysis of fields in physics provides an exam- prehended with respect to intentional agency, but ple of the relational study of non-intentional agents. apply as well to non-intentional agency. Scholars, it Fields mediate the interaction between the sources of should be noted, often argue that we should analyse the fields. Some scholars focus on the fields rather only some of these. Those who emphasize individuals than the sources. are often particularly hostile to discussions of group or institutional agency (and vice versa). The goal he- 3.2. What? re, though, is to summarize all types of scholarly in- vestigation: “What do change agents do?” Non-intentional agents Individual Agents. Theories may focus on a parti- usually cannot actively “do” anything (tornados pro- cular individual (say, the king) or, more commonly, viding an obvious exception). They are thus restricted on a “typical” individual. They may also explore how to a passive form of “action” wherein they provide different types of individual will act differently in a constraints and/or incentives. These effects can be of particular situation. To understand why an individual huge importance despite their passive nature. Inten- behaved or believed as they did, scholars need to look tional individuals, relationships, and especially groups within the individual. A range of theories that look at can also act passively. They also share with “natural” elements of the complex amalgam of genetic tenden- phenomena such as tornados the capacity to act acti- cies, abilities, personality dimensions and so on that vely: to do something in common parlance. In additi- comprise the individual are thus embraced here. on, they have the ability to do something that by Newtonian mechanics provides an example of a their nature non-intentional agents cannot do: they non-intentional theory focused upon individual agen- can form beliefs or attitudes or intentions. That is, cy. Here the scholar analyses the behavior of indivi- they can exert influence through thoughts as well as Knowl. Org. 30(2003)No.1 23 R. Szostak: Classifying Scholarly Theories and Methods deeds. These thoughts can be spoken of at the level of Traditional/Cultural. Agents are guided to do individuals and at the level of groups. Group attitudes “what is done around here”. This can at times occur embrace culture, public opinion, ideology, and natio- intuitively, if they have internalized their group’s at- nalism. There are, in sum, three types of “What?” titudes and will feel guilt for breaking them. Howe- that map imperfectly onto the six types of “Who?”. ver, it generally has some conscious element. A distinction might also be made between whether Rules (Deontology). Agents follow a set of rules, agents are “acting” or “reacting”. However, the world which they have previously determined to be desira- is a complex web in which every phenomenon in- ble. These may or not accord with cultural guidelines. fluences and is influenced by hundreds of others. Agents have devoted some thought to these (which in Every “act”, whether passive or active, action or atti- turn may be influenced by any of the five decision- tude, is necessarily conditioned by the numerous in- making processes). Common examples are the Gol- fluences upon the phenomenon in question. A scho- den Rule, Kantian Imperative, or a belief in certain lar studying “reaction” is explicitly taking these into Rights. A host of more specific rules are also possible. account. A scholar studying “action” is treating these Process/Virtues. Agents are concerned more with as exogenous for the moment and focussing upon ef- how they act (the process) than what they achieve. fects. An emphasis on “actions” is often associated They will generally evaluate their behaviour in terms with a “positivistic” approach to scholarship that of what are commonly called virtues: they may, for seeks to analyse only that which we can observe, whi- example, be determined to behave honestly at all ti- le an emphasis on “attitudes” is associated with an mes. “interpretive” perspective that focuses upon how These approaches to decision-making can be com- agents interpret their situations. Sadly, the critical ro- bined. In judging what is “responsible” behavior, an le of passive “action” is ignored in this dichotomy, at agent may have recourse to cultural guidelines, eva- least explicitly. As in almost every scholarly debate luation of likely consequences, the Golden Rule, and among opposites, there are legions of positivist scho- gut feelings. Theorists focussing on any one of them lars and philosophers who condemn the practice of should be aware of (and ideally speak to) the possibility of interpretive scholarship, and legions of interpretivists other influences. who return the compliment. Again the goal here is to The five types of decision-making capture a variety list all possibilities.5 of distinctions made in the literature, such as consci- ous versus subconscious, and process versus outcome- 3.3. Why? oriented decisionmaking. Most importantly, they ha- ve room for both individual-level and societal-level “Why did the agent(s) act (react) as they did?” In the influences. While each of the five types can be unpac- case of non-intentional agents, reference must be ked (with respect to particular goals, sources of intui- made to the constraints and incentives inherent in tion, rules, and virtues) each is nevertheless characte- their nature. In the case of intentional agents the sort rized by a well-defined decision rule. of “decision-making process” at work must be inves- When moving from individual to group or relati- tigated. There are five main ways in which agents onship agency an additional set of concerns must be might make any decision: addressed. Is decision-making democratic, or do some Rational/Consequentialist. Agents focus on desi- individuals exert disproportionate influence? Are the- rable consequences, and try to rationally calculate the re formal or informal guidelines for decision-making? best way to achieve those goals. These goals may be Is decision-making consensual, or are there dissatis- selfish or altruistic, and focussed on a diverse set of fied minorities? genetic drives or personal desires. They may reflect socio-cultural influences to varying degrees. 3.4. Where? Intuitive. Agents act on what their “gut” tells them, without much conscious thought. Intuition “Where does whatever the agent does occur?” This may guide them toward satisfying various genetic question can be interpreted both literally and figura- drives. It may act upon various subconscious “sche- tively. Literally, it can be asked where in the real mas” about how the world works, the accuracy of world “it” happens. There are two broad possibilities: which depends on one’s lifetime experience, and par- that “it” can happen (almost) anywhere, or that “it” ticularly of traumatic events. can only happen in certain specified situations. Figu- ratively, it can be asked which links among the phe- 24 Knowl. Org. 30(2003)No.1 R. Szostak: Classifying Scholarly Theories and Methods nomena of interest to scholars the theory applies to. 3.6. What Is A Theory? Again, a theory that speaks to a very small set of links can be distinguished from one that implies that the The vexed question of defining the word “theory” has same effect is felt along a wide array of links. In both been avoided to this point. “Trying to give a basic the literal and figurative cases, there is an important comprehensive account of the concept of a ‘theory’ is distinction between a search for “general regularities” an invigorating but fruitless walkabout in metaphy- and a search for “particularities”. Philosophers have sics” (Ziman, 2000, 117). Ziman asserts that scholars long used the words “nomothetic” and “idiographic” generally know a theory when they see one, and that to refer to these two types of analysis. There has been theories are social institutions that conform to the a fair bit of confusion about what exactly these words standards of scholarly communities. By identifying mean, what it is that they refer to, and where the above the dimensions along which theories can differ, boundary between the two might lie. The analysis a superior definition of the word “theory” can be above provides concrete answers to the first two of provided. Theories, in other words, are specifications these queries. of agency, action, decision-making processes, locati- With respect to the third query, defining a boun- on, and temporality, with respect to any (posited) re- dary between nomothetic and idiographic theory is lationship(s) among phenomena. Note that the focus problematic. There is instead a continuum. In the li- here is on theories about how the world works; these teral case this runs from specifying no “external” can be distinguished from a range of philosophical conditions to specifying these in terms of all other theories about, say, how the world should work, or phenomena. In the figurative case this runs from app- how scholars should operate. lication to one set of phenomena to application to Grand theories especially, but many narrower almost all sets. “Nomothetic” and “idiographic” can theories as well, combine different types of theoreti- nevertheless be recognized as helpful classes. Theories cal analyses of different phenomena. These might use- of both sorts should struggle to be as explicit as pos- fully be thought of as “theory clusters”. Theory clu- sible about their range of applicability. Indeed, this is sters should be evaluated theory by theory. The simi- one of the primary goals of scholarship, and one area larities and differences between theory clusters can in which natural excels over the social scien- then readily be appreciated at the level of individual ces and humanities. theories. Those theories within a theory cluster that accord best with empirical reality, or involve argu- 3.5. When? ments that are hard to examine empirically, can also be identified. “When does ‘it’ happen?” Interpreted literally, this There is a long and troubled philosophical literatu- question can yield the same answer as the “where?” re that attempts to differentiate science from non- question, for it refers to the conjunction of realizati- science, at least in the English-speaking world. Many ons of other phenomena that must be in place for a scientists and philosophers clearly wish to distinguish given relationship to hold. Instead of looking at the what scientists or scholars do from what others do. timing of a process the “time path” of the process The fact that the definition of a scholarly theory pro- should be investigated. How, in other words, does vided above excludes analyses that fail to engage the the process in question work itself out through time? 5W questions – say, because they insist on some va- There are four possibilities: gue, undefinable, change agent – can thus be seen as a positive attribute of that definition. Note that the – There are negative feedback effects such that the discussion of methods below will provide a further original impulse is exactly negated and the system criterion by which to distinguish scholarly from non- of phenomena as a whole is unchanged. scholarly analysis. – There is movement toward a new “equilibrium” In Szostak (2003a) several natural and social scien- where the system will only change in response to tific theories are placed within the typology. Several further “shocks”. of these give ambiguous answers to some of the 5W – There are positive feedback effects such that cer- questions. For example, debate rages among action tain phenomena continue to change in a particular theorists regarding answers to “Where?” and “When?” direction. Notably, this debate can be more readily comprehen- – The effects are stochastic, and thus quite different ded by stating it in 5W terminology. While greater outcomes are possible. clarity is desirable, the fact that individual scholars Knowl. Org. 30(2003)No.1 25 R. Szostak: Classifying Scholarly Theories and Methods within a theoretical camp can give precise answers to If it is accepted that scholarly theories should en- each question can cause these theories to be judged – gage each of the 5W questions, and that the full set of perhaps charitably – as scholarly. possible answers to these questions has been identi- It might be argued that the 5W questions do not fied, then the classification is necessarily exhaustive. capture the essence of what a theory is, but merely Nor is this circular reasoning: it has been argued – al- certain, perhaps unimportant, attributes of theories. beit briefly – that scholarly theories should engage The logical structure of the 5W questions, and their the 5W questions for purposes of scholarly clarity, successful application in the field of journalism, not classificatory convenience. While considerable might be viewed as insufficient justification. When permutations of detail may be possible within theory several social theories were placed within the typolo- types, there is a clear finite limit to the number of ty- gy in Szostak (2003a), the vast bulk of what commen- pes. This, especially in concert with finite lists of me- tators found it worthwhile to say about a particular thods and phenomena, means that scholarship is es- theory was found to provide answers to the 5W que- sentially bounded. There are limits to the directions stions (the rest dealt with personalities and philo- in which investigation can be taken. A mistaken im- sophical perspectives). Most theories in natural scien- pression that the possibilities are boundless is likely ce involve non-intentional agents, and passive reacti- one source of postmodern despair. A recognition of on, and thus no active decision-making process. They boundedness would then encourage a belief that en- can be distinguished in terms of individual versus hanced understanding is possible. group or relationship agency, where they occur (in Turner’s second problem is that it is not clear both senses of where) and what sort of process is in- whether the goal of theory is explanation (of actions) volved. It must seem, then, that the 5W questions do or interpretation (of attitudes). This paper has shown capture the essence of theories. that the answer depends on the type of theory, and suggested that scholarly understanding requires both 3.7. Advantages of A Typology of Theory types. Turner’s third problem is that there is no consen- Turner (2000) identifies four major “problems” with sus on what a theory is. Is a theory a broad frame- social theory. The typology outlined above can pro- work for organizing research? Or a collection of ge- vide a partial or complete solution to each of these. neral concepts which direct research? Or a specific First, Turner worries that there is no obvious “pro- orientation that guides researchers to ask particular gress” in theory. Theorists work on one problem for questions? Theory can be all of these things, but can- a while, and then abandon this to work on something not be just any one of them. Theory clusters, and else. Often they merely “reinvent the wheel”, repro- perhaps some nomothetic theories, may serve as ducing research on a problem abandoned long before. broad frameworks. Theory, though, must also fill in This typology, combined with the other classificati- the details. Nomothetic theories can be thought of as ons, provides a potential system of categorization general concepts (though the word “concept” is frigh- such that a researcher could immediately know if a teningly vague), but research that was only guided by particular type of theory (and method) had ever been these would be severely limited. As for “specific ori- applied to a particular set of phenomena (see section entation,” theory can and should guide the formation 5). More generally, the typology provides an exhau- of research questions. However it must in turn be in- stive set of “what is possible”. This can alert resear- formed by research, or scholarship can never progress. chers to possibilities that they may have overlooked. A definition of theory in terms of the 5W questions Most centrally it guides researchers to appreciate that thus encompasses and surpasses the competing and they are striving for a mix of different types of theo- incomplete definitions Turner reprises. ries. Necessarily each of these will have strengths and Turner’s fourth problem is that social theory has weaknesses. Rather than abandoning a research pro- not come to grips with various dichotomies, such as blem because of this realization, researchers are gui- action versus praxis, agency versus structure, or indi- ded to work toward an ever-greater synthesis. From vidual versus societal causation. The typology deve- this perspective, the goal is to identify the range of loped here suggests that these are all legitimate types applicability of all theories. That is, scholars should of theory. Scholars are guided to appreciate the seek to answer “Where?” precisely. Finding limitati- strengths and weaknesses of each, rather than preten- ons to a particular theory is thus “progress”. ding that there is only one right way to proceed.

26 Knowl. Org. 30(2003)No.1 R. Szostak: Classifying Scholarly Theories and Methods

4. Classifying Methods feminism, and perhaps also . Cer- tainly, “case studies” involve the use of one or Scholars do not simply develop theories but also seek more of the above methods. with which to inform their theorizing. Scholarly methods are in practice as difficult to define This section thus starts with an exhaustive and mana- in a sentence or two as are scholarly theories. In this geable set of scholarly methods. It is therefore quite case, though, the sort of definition proffered for scho- possible that both scholars and students could be ac- larly theory above is even easier to derive, for there quainted with the basic pros and cons of every me- are only some dozen scholarly methods. Unfortuna- thod, should this prove desirable. Moreover it will be tely works on method almost never juxtapose the possible to evaluate all methods in terms of the 5W methods of the humanities with those of other areas questions. of scholarship. Nevertheless, by reading works on re- Some scholars would attempt to aggregate some of search methods and methodology across a range of these methods into broader categories. “Theoretical” disciplines, a list of scholarly methods can be develo- methods, designed to look at the foundations of a ped inductively. Inevitably, it is possible that some theory, are sometimes distinguished from “Empirical” methods will have been neglected, though this is only methods. Yet most methods can serve to establish likely if these are employed by very few scholars. Me- both the general adequacy of a theory and the quanti- thods that deserve separate treatment might also have tative strength of posited relationships. Mathematical been grouped together. Nevertheless, the primary re- modelling is often viewed as theoretical, and statisti- sult of such efforts – that the number of distinct me- cal testing as empirical; note that the two are often thods used by scholars is manageably small – is robust, used in combination. Some scholars would include and would be upheld by further research along these the logical analysis of theory structure as a “theoreti- lines. There are, broadly speaking, some twelve di- cal” method; only methods that at least support the stinct methods employed by scholars (often in com- exposure of theories to evidence from the real world bination): are included on the list above. “Quantitative” me- thods are sometimes distinguished from “qualitative” – (including natural or quasi- methods. In terms of the methods that were listed experiments) above, quantitative researchers favour experiments, – surveys surveys, statistical analysis of secondary data, content –interviews analysis, and structured (where particu- – mathematical models (and simulations) lar “acts” are counted), while qualitative researchers – statistical analysis (often, but far from always, as- favour participant , in-depth interviewing, sociated with models) case studies in general, biography, and focus groups - including secondary [that is, collected by others] (Oakley, 2000, 26). Yet exceptions abound in which data analysis advocates of one approach have nevertheless used the – ethnographic/ observational analysis [some would methods of the other. Goldenberg (1992, 322) thus as- distinguish “interactional” analysis in which the serts that (at least) experiments, interviews, and histo- investigator interacts with those under observa- rical methods are not inherently quantitative or qua- tion] litative. Note that the boundaries are not always – experience/ intuition [some would treat this as an clear: when does an interview with a fixed set of que- important subset of observational analysis, since stions cease being qualitative? we are in effect “observing” ourselves here] – textual (content, discourse) analysis 4.1. Strengths and Weaknesses of Methods – classification (including evolutionary analysis) –mapmaking The scholarly community would want methods that – hermeneutics/ semiotics (the study of symbols and could cope with each of the cells in the typology of their meaning) theory. Obviously, there will not be distinct methods – physical traces (as in archaeology) to place in each cell. Instead, every method should be – some would treat “evaluation” of programs as dis- investigated to ascertain how well it copes with the tinct, though it can be seen as a combination of different types of agency, action, decision-making some of the above methods. Similar arguments can process, and time path enumerated in the typology of be made with respect to “demography”, case study, theory, as well as how generalizable it is. It might be Knowl. Org. 30(2003)No.1 27 R. Szostak: Classifying Scholarly Theories and Methods found that one method is clearly superior for a parti- 4.2. Evaluating Particular Methods cular cell in the typology, all methods have some app- licability, or a subset of methods is useful to differing “There is never a single way to conceptualize or ad- degrees. Note that if different methods are best suited dress a problem. Nor is there any great consensus to investigating different theory types, multiple me- about how successfully various methods deal with thods must be used in comparing one type of theory particular issues” (Goldenberg, 1992, xiii). It is hoped against another. If only one method is used, results that the questions outlined above will allow scholars will be biased. to be much more definitive about the nature of a re- In asking the 5W questions of method, additional search “problem”. The typologies can then provide a dimensions along which methods can be evaluated useful guide as to which methods are most appropria- emerge. It is noteworthy that the new dimensions re- te. fer to potential limitations of methods, rather than Space prevents the evaluation of all of the dozen directly to the goals of methods. With respect to methods in terms of these various dimensions. This “who?”, methods differ in terms of how many agents paper will treat experiments, interviews, mathemati- they can embrace. Surveys, for example, can deal cal modelling, participant observation (hereafter PO), with many more individuals than interviews, and the- and textual analysis in what follows. This allows co- se with more than participant observation (McNeill, verage of methods commonly employed in the natu- 1990, 121-2). Ragin (2000) discusses the advantages ral sciences, social sciences, and humanities. and disadvantages of studying one versus many. Type of agents (and number investigated): Expe- With respect to “what?”, methods differ in how riments can deal with non-intentional agents or indi- well they can identify a “causal” relationship. Note viduals or relationships. Analysis of group behavior is that the word “causal” is used here in the broadest generally though not always infeasible. Experiments sense. It is meant to include the transmission of atti- usually deal with small numbers of agents, and thus tudes or meaning within interpretivist scholarship. It questions of their representativeness can loom very is also meant to embrace complex systems in which large. “Natural” experiments, in which particular oc- diverse phenomena exert influences on each other. currences are analysed as they occur in the world, al- Regardless of what sort of process is investigated, the- low greater attention to group processes, as well as re are four criteria for establishing a causal argument. non-intentional agents such as planets or volcanoes, The first involves showing correlation. Observations but at the cost of limiting the researcher’s ability to of the causal agent(s) should be associated with obser- control realizations of other variables. vations of the posited result(s). Second, the direction Interviews are much more costly than surveys, and of effect should be established. The cause should ap- thus tend to involve limited numbers of individuals. pear before the results (as a general rule: there are so- Interviews can speak only indirectly to relationships me relations in physics where reverse temporal causa- (unless there are joint interviews) and group processes. tion is posited). Third, alternative explanations of the It is possible to model anything. observed correlation should be ruled out. Fourth, in- PO is focussed on intentional agents, but could termediate variables can be identified. These can aid comment on the constraints imposed by non- understanding of why the causal relationship exists intentional agents. Only a small number of individu- (Singleton and Strait, 1999). als or relationships, and generally only one group, Is “what is to be studied” dictated entirely by theo- can be studied at any time. ry or not? A deductive approach looks only at phe- Texts speak most directly to the intentions of their nomena and processes within a theory, attempting to author, but can also provide valuable insights into the ascertain how well the theory accords with reality. author’s perceptions of groups, relationships, and This can be distinguished from an inductive approach non-intentional agents. Love letters and other cor- that embraces phenomena and processes that should respondence can provide special insight into relati- be integrated into theory. onships. Group-sponsored texts can speak to group With respect to “where?” and “when?” it can be attitudes. While the author in general cannot react to asked whether the method allows the observation of the particular researcher or research project, the movements through space and/or time. As well, are author may nevertheless wish to leave a biased inter- scholars constrained to an artificial setting (like a la- pretation for posterity. There are limitations to the boratory) or can they observe agents in their natural insights that can be drawn from any text, and also the setting? number of texts that a research project can embrace; 28 Knowl. Org. 30(2003)No.1 R. Szostak: Classifying Scholarly Theories and Methods texts cannot be fully appreciated, however, except in Interviews might establish a correlation between the context of other texts. attitude pairs, or an attitude and action. They are li- Type of causation: Experiments are very good at mited in their ability to identify temporal priority (in identifying both passive and active causation. They part as interviewees may mislead on this and other are less successful at measuring changes in attitude, points). The ability to distinguish among hypotheses for these must either be inferred from behavior or and/or identify intermediate variables is limited and from interviews. dependent on the researcher asking appropriate que- Interviews attempt to elicit attitudes. They might stions. in this regard identify attitudes that encourage(d) par- Models will “identify” what is put in them. They ticular actions. But people often do not know why will ignore intermediate variables not recognized by they act as they do (Goldenberg, 1992, 352). Some in- the researcher, and provide no means on their own terview questions can elicit insights into con- for dismissing alternatives that are not logically inco- straints/incentives imposed by impersonal agents. herent. It is possible, again, to model anything. The huge PO is potentially capable of identifying all four. danger here is that, if the model is not going to be ex- Note, though, that PO researchers are often less con- posed to external reality it is difficult to judge its vali- cerned with identifying cause-effect relationships than dity. Modelling can, though, aid researchers in identi- to “tell it like it is” (McNeill, 64). Even many PO re- fying logical inconsistencies. searchers feel the method is better for exploration PO emphasizes attitudes, but could also study ac- than testing, though others differ (Gol- tions, as well as constraints/incentives. There may be denberg, 1992, 322). no better way to ascertain how delinquents, for ex- All four elements may be discerned within a text. ample, make sense of their lives. (Or not; one may While conclusions may be reached quite different always be an outsider, no matter how hard one tries.) from those of the author, researchers can only build The very presence of an observer – who will general- upon the information the author (consciously or not) ly, though not always, let participants know who provided. they are – might cause participants to behave diffe- Decision-making processes?: Experiments are best rently, and pretend to different attitudes (see Golden- at establishing links between cause and effect. They berg, 1992). However, if observed for a period of can illuminate some aspects of decision-making, such months, participants start to forget about the obser- as the degree to which individuals are swayed by the ver’s presence, and would in any case find it difficult views of others, but notably only to the degree that to pretend over such a long period of time. PO may these aspects of decision-making can be operationali- also teach researchers about themselves. zed in the experimental setting. Texts speak most directly to intentions, but provi- People find it easier to answer “how?” than “why?” de indirect evidence on passive and active causation. questions in general. When interviewers ask why In the case of historical events, texts (sometimes in people did something, they tend to be given a chro- conjunction with secondary data) may be the only in- nological account. This often has little detail on how formation available regarding any type of causation. decisions were reached. The researcher must be wary that the author has left Decision-making processes may be modelled. It has a biased treatment of events. The availability of mul- proven much easier to model rational decision- tiple texts (and multiple techniques for analysis) can making, which may induce a in theorizing. provide some solace here, though note that most texts Another strength of PO is that it follows subjects in world history have been written by well-educated, as they make decisions, and engages them in discussi- higher income white males. Those texts that survive ons about their thought processes. are likely to have pleased the rich or powerful. Authors often provide some discussion of why The four criteria for identifying a causal relati- they or others behaved as they did, though this may onship: Experiments are very good with respect to all be ignorant or purposely biased. four of these, though there is some potential for bias Phenomena and processes outside of a particular in how competing hypotheses are tested. Note in this theory?: Experiments are primarily a deductive tool: latter regard that experiments are potentially highly the subject is manipulated in a particular way and re- reliable, if not necessarily valid:6 they can be easily sults measured. The can only disclose the repeated with all sorts of subtle changes to research importance of phenomena unexpected by the resear- design. cher if some sort of mistake is made in experimental Knowl. Org. 30(2003)No.1 29 R. Szostak: Classifying Scholarly Theories and Methods design, either through the introduction of some un- upon many texts. Note, though, that there are many planned element, or through failure to appreciate situations, historical and otherwise, for which no how the experimental environment would influence texts exist. results. Such serendipity is surprisingly common in Spatiality (studies through space?): Experiments the history of science. are usually constrained to operate in an artificial and Some interviews are more “open” in allowing re- small laboratory setting. There is thus a huge validity spondents to respond at length in ways not imagined problem: do agents behave the same in their natural by the researcher. These can elicit ideas outside of setting? This is usually not a great concern with non- pre-existing theory. There is, though, a loss in objec- intentional agents, but can loom large for intentional tivity relative to (survey-like) closed interviews. agents. Moreover, researchers cannot follow spatial Models by their nature include only those pheno- behavior requiring more space than the laboratory. mena judged important by the researcher. In working Even in natural settings, the mere knowledge that one out mathematical implications, the researcher will is being observed can cause a change in behavior: the occasionally be surprised by a result. “Hawthorne effect” refers to studies in the 1930s that PO is inherently inductive, though individual re- found by accident that workers increased effort whe- searchers may be guided to ignore evidence which never they were being observed. conflicts with their desired conclusions. Note that a Interviews occur at one or a few points in space. PO researcher can usually not take notes while ob- They must rely on the interviewee’s memory and serving, and thus there is a danger of selective memo- honesty (note that interviewees may mislead them- ry. PO researchers may also come to identify with selves as well as researchers) in constructing spatial the point of view of their subjects, and ignore conflic- processes. Models can have a spatial element, but be- ting information. An opposite danger is that the re- cause of the multiple dimensions involved this often searcher may be so overwhelmed by a wealth of “da- makes the mathematics intractable. There is thus a ta” that they cannot establish causal connections; in bias toward ignoring spatial considerations. The PO practice this rarely seems to occur. Note that PO is a researcher can potentially follow participants as they passive activity (demanding great patience); the re- move through space. In practice, though, this may be searcher should not encourage actions or attitudes constrained. One cannot follow firefighters or police that they wish to observe. or criminals everywhere. Research is conducted in a Texts are usually quite “rich” and can thus provide natural setting. Authors of texts may discuss move- a diversity of interpretations. As with PO, there is a ments of themselves and others through space, sub- danger of the researcher being so overwhelmed by de- ject to the usual . tail that they cannot discern causal processes. Change through time (continuous or static co- General rules versus idiographic relationships: verage?): Experiments are limited in their ability to Both are quite possible in experiments, for experi- analyse changes that occur over lengthy periods. “Na- mental design can be manipulated to see how a parti- tural” experiments are a bit different, allowing scien- cular cause-effect relationship is affected by any num- tists some scope for analyzing revolutions or planeta- ber of circumstances. Experiments in human science ry formation. Interviews occur at one or a few points are generally conducted by those confident of general in time. They must rely on the interviewee’s memory patterns of cause and effect (McNeill, 1990, ch.3). and honesty. Models can embrace change through Interviews necessarily involve small groups of time, but generally only smooth change through time people, and thus general rules require integration of (with the exception of chaos models). PO necessarily results across many studies. Interviews can, though, follows subjects over a period of time. The coverage identify realizations of other phenomena that prevent is fairly continuous. PO studies generally last only a a general rule from operating. few months and thus cannot fully comprehend pro- Modelling sets the stage for both. cesses that evolve over longer time frames. Texts of- PO is idiographic in focus, but studies across a va- ten provide continuous coverage over lengthy peri- riety of situations might identify general relations- ods, subject to the usual biases. hips. PO can, though, like interviews, usefully identi- Various time-paths: Experiments are best at iden- fy realizations of other phenomena that prevent a ge- tifying simple cause-effect relationships. They can neral rule from operating. identify equilibria in very simple systems (such as set- While individual texts tend to deal with the parti- ting up a pricing game to see how a market-clearing cular, general rules may be discerned by drawing price is established), but in general are poor at identi- 30 Knowl. Org. 30(2003)No.1 R. Szostak: Classifying Scholarly Theories and Methods fying complex interactions. Interviews on their own They thus severely underappreciate the rich variety would face great difficulty in identifying the nature of of strengths and weaknesses in method. causal processes. It is easier to model equilibrium sy- One further advantage of the 5W approach is that stems, and thus scholars must be wary of a modelling it suggests that the scholarly community does not bias toward these. The PO researcher can identify take full advantage of the potential of particular me- movement toward either existing or new equilibria thods. These are often not used within their full ran- only if these occur within the timespan of the re- ge of applicability. For example, PO researchers search. More generally, the researcher will identify could try harder to identify causal relationships. some causal links that tend to maintain stability and The 5W approach provides a means by which both others which imply change. It will be difficult within scholars and students could be introduced to the pos- the confines of one study to identify the kind of sibilities inherent in all methods. To master any of change. Evidence of all sorts of time-paths can be gai- these methods is time-consuming, and it could hardly ned from texts, subject to the usual biases. be expected that most scholars or students would be adept at more than a couple. Since people will be ex- 4.3. Advantages of a 5W Analysis of Methods posed in their lives to examples of each, however, they should be acquainted with the pros and cons, It was noted in the previous section that the typology and potential biases, of each. of theory provided an answer to the vexed question The single greatest advantage of the 5W approach of “what is a theory?” Gower (1997, 249) bemoans is that it shows that there is a place for all of these the fact that the failure of philosophers to provide an methods in the scholarly enterprise as a whole. Each “account of ” to which no exception has unique strengths, but also unique limitations. The can be found, has, as with respect to theory, opened very fact that methods can be differentiated along se- the door to those who would deny the very existence veral distinct dimensions cries out for the understan- of “scientific method”, or any standard by which this ding that no one method should dominate the scho- might be preferred to other forms of investigation. As larly enterprise. What is true at the level of the scho- with theory, the provision of a list of methods provi- larly enterprise as a whole is also true at the level of des a more compelling definition of individual questions: these too tend to lend themsel- than has existed heretofore. Moreover the 5W questi- ves to the use of multiple methods. ons show that all of these methods can be evaluated The 5W questions allow this argument to be fles- in a similar fashion, and the important result derived hed out in detail. It can be asked whether there are that each has strengths and weaknesses. particular types of agent, causal process, decision- There are, of course, other possible schemes by making process, and so on for which one method far which one might compare and evaluate methods. outperforms the others. The clearest positive answer This approach, though, has a claim to objectivity, and to this question lies in the applicability of the experi- points to an exhaustive system of evaluation. Single- mental method to the study of the interactions among ton and Strait (1999, 410) evaluate their four preferred non-intentional agents. Here the limitations of the ex- methods in terms of seven criteria. Inevitably, they perimental method often do not come into play. It thus capture some but not all of the distinctions made should hardly be a surprise, then, that, as Gower above. They worry, for example, about the possibili- (1997, 10) notes, experiments are often treated as “the” ty of replication, the effects of researcher character method in . Note, though, that experi- and behaviour, and whether subjects react to being ments are still fallible. Researchers may be oblivious studied. Some of their criteria are quite general. For to the role played by various elements of experimental example, “limits to what can be studied” is suggestive, design in generating a particular result. Thus the re- but nowhere near as concrete as the discussion above sults of experiments are “rarely decisive”, and “often of how methods fare in terms of five distinct questi- ambiguous and sometimes opaque” (Gower, 11). Whi- ons. Bouma and Atkinson (1995) evaluate methods in le those methods which involve asking questions of terms of five very broad questions: “What is happe- subjects are obviously unsuited to non-intentional ning?”, “Has there been change over time?”, ”Are A agents, classification, intuition (chemical reactions are and B different?”, “Are A and B different over time?”, regularly observed in our daily lives), mathematical and “Does A cause B?”; they conclude that one broad modelling (to identify possibilities and exclude impos- type of method is best suited to each type of answer. sibilities), physical traces (of interactions in a natural Knowl. Org. 30(2003)No.1 31 R. Szostak: Classifying Scholarly Theories and Methods setting), and even mapmaking (the Periodic Table can ble exclusion of relationships from the analysis, the be seen as a map) can usefully be applied. role of attitudes and decision-making processes, the Other cases in which a particular method outshi- possibility of exclusion of non-equilibrium processes, nes others can be identified. Mapmaking can give trivialization of the spatial dimension, omission of unique insight into spatial and temporal aspects of a variables not implicated by theory (or for which data process. Intuition likely gives unique insight into could not be found), and/or failure to properly iden- how and why art moves us. Surveys are advantageous tify causal relationships. Researchers could then turn for gauging attitudes of large numbers of individuals. to methods that are better in each of these respects. PO may be the only way to comprehend how others make meaning of their lives. But again all methods 5. Using These Classifications For Document are problematic and scholars should wish to supple- Retrieval ment these to the degree possible. The social sciences and humanities are often vie- Many studies have found that scholars seriously un- wed as weak relations to natural science, precisely be- der-utilize subject catalogues and indexing and ab- cause they are not dominated by a particular method. stracting services. Weinberg (1988) attributes this un- The 5W approach shows that the difference is one of fortunate state of affairs to the fact that such classifi- degree rather than kind (albeit an important differen- cations do not adequately detail what is novel about a ce of degree). Not all natural scientists can avail them- work. They provide information of use to the novice selves of the experimental method. Even those that concerning what a work is about but generally say can use experiments should nevertheless seek insights little about the “ideas” contained in a work. Resear- from other methods. Social scientists and humanists chers thus rely on bibliographies and recommendati- generally, but not always, focus upon intentional cau- ons from other scholars, while recognizing that they sation. They must then have recourse to a wider ran- thus likely miss important works relevant to their re- ge of methods than those utilized in natural science. search interests. Weinberg (1988) recognizes that the They should neither idealize nor condemn the me- theory employed in a work is a key bit of informati- thods of natural science, but draw from the full range on rarely noted in subject catalogues. She also menti- of method (Bunge, 1998). ons method (as does Palmer, 1996), and cites favoura- The 5W analysis can guide the research process in bly Swift et al (1978), who had argued for classifying many ways. First, a theorist should be guided to spe- works with respect to both theory and method. Yet cify answers to the 5W questions. They can then ask Weinberg makes no recommendations for change, what sorts of method are best suited to each of the feeling that any effort to classify by theory and me- elements of a particular theory. While it may be im- thod would necessarily be too complicated.7 possible for an individual researcher to use all impli- The classifications enumerated above could form cated methods, they might strive to use those unde- part of a superior system of document classification. remployed by previous researchers. Note that for any To be sure, documents should not be coded primarily non-trivial scientific question in it will in terms of the theories or methods used. Pride of be possible to identify some application of all me- place should be left to subject matter, so that docu- thods. Scholars writing survey articles should thus ments on similar subjects would continue to be “shel- strive to report research using all methods, or at least ved” together. Even here it would be beneficial to urge scholars to broaden their approach so that this move away from the present discipline-based systems can be done. of classification toward a true subject-based classifica- “Unfortunately, social researchers rely altogether tion, grounded in a hierarchical listing of natural and too frequently on a single method or measure when a human phenomena.8 “As research and knowledge be- number of approaches could be brought to bear on come more interdisciplinary, the academic subjects the research question” (Singleton and Strait, 1999, represented in our research libraries become increa- 394). Where a particular research enterprise has been singly ill-suited to the conduct of research” (Palmer, dominated by one method, the researcher can use the 1996, 166). Such a list was derived (though further 5W questions to identify the most serious limitations unpacking would be necessary) for the subject matter of that method, and the relevance of these to the par- of the social sciences and humanities in Szostak (2000) ticular research questions being addressed. If, for ex- and (2003).9 This innovation would solve three broad ample, statistical analysis of secondary data has domi- types of problem experienced by existing systems: nated, scholars should be concerned about the possi- subjects that are studied by more than one discipline 32 Knowl. Org. 30(2003)No.1 R. Szostak: Classifying Scholarly Theories and Methods receive multiple classifications, subjects that are inhe- scholars’ ability to access all that has been treated by rently interdisciplinary have no obvious place, and the human ” (Svenonius, 2000, 29). At pre- subjects that combine existing subjects result in arbi- sent, it can be difficult for a researcher to identify trary classification decisions. Note that works discus- whether their proposed research has been performed sing links between phenomena could be coded by previously. If, though, every scholarly work were co- linking the notations of these phenomena; enumera- ded in terms of every phenomenon or link between tive schemes are often unnecessarily complicated be- phenomena investigated, and the theories and me- cause such linkages are given special entries.10 Note thods employed, a researcher could simply inquire of also that the emergence of new areas of study poses the subject index whether a particular combination of no problem: these would be coded in terms of the phenomena, theory type, and method had been tried phenomena studied. before. After having classified subject matter, works can Having identified subject matter, theory type, and be coded in terms of theory and method. Of course, method, works could then be coded as necessary for before librarians could code for these, authors would type of work (encyclopaedia etc.), language, time pe- have to indicate which theory types and methods riod, and geographical area in a manner similar to they used and which phenomena they analysed; this other classification schemes. Marcella and Newton would be a useful exercise in clarification for authors. (1994, 56-8) note the huge advantages of developing a There being only twelve methods, it would be common coding for such characteristics as time and straightforward to provide each of these with a sim- place. The classifications suggested above extend these ple symbolic designation. Seeking to use the first let- advantages into the realm of theory and method. ter of each method would aid both intelligibility and Some works are critiques of scholarly practice. recall. Theory is trickier; while there are only a hand- These can also be coded in terms of a 5W typology of ful of possible answers to each of the 5W questions it scholarly practice, where the “who?” question embra- would be desirable to code the answers to each que- ces concerns with the limited abilities and personali- stion. This would require five notational places (four, ties of humans, the “what?” question asks “what is if coding for generalizability were eschewed). scholarship (science)?”, the “where?” question invites Coding for theory and method would be a major analysis of the institutional structure in which scho- innovation. It would aid the task of simplifying the larship is performed, the “why?” question involves enumeration of subjects, for enumerative schemes of- study of the diverse incentives facing scholars, and the ten treat (some) theories and methods as “subjects”. “when?” question embraces the place of a particular General works on a particular theory or method piece of research within the history of that field of could be “shelved” in the most relevant category, or . in a generalia class. Theories or methods applied to a Note that in classifying in turn by phenomenon, particular subject matter would be shelved with that theory type, method, and scholarly critique, the 5W subject. Nevertheless, in the “subject” catalog, all typology of section 2 has been utilized. The 5W ap- works using a particular theory type or method could proach has been used again in classifying theory and be easily identified. This is presently not feasible in scholarly critique. The entire system of classification almost any library. While classification codes are avai- then hinges almost entirely on familiarity with the lable for some methods, these are generally used to 5W approach, a list of phenomena, and a list of some classify works about method rather than works ap- dozen methods. Yet despite this simplicity it codes plying a method. Moreover, methods – and even mo- much more information than existing systems. Note re so theory types – are not classified in an exhaustive also that this classification system, like all extant clas- and coherent manner in any existing document classi- sification systems, combines elements of enumerative fication scheme. Researchers can be blissfully unawa- (the lists of phenomena and methods) and faceted (the re of insights from the application of a particular me- 5W typologies) approaches.11 thod or theory type to other phenomena. The task of As noted in Szostak (2000) and (2003), philosophi- identifying the range of applicability of a particular cal concerns often exist on a plane “above” the phe- theory is thus unnecessarily complicated. As well, nomena investigated by scholars. It would undoub- scholarly efforts to comprehend the strengths and tedly be desirable to maintain a class for general weaknesses of theories and methods are blunted. works of philosophical interest. Still, philosophical “Progress [in scholarly understanding] depends on evaluations of particular theories or methods are best cumulative scholarship, which in turn depends on placed with scientific analyses of these. More contro- Knowl. Org. 30(2003)No.1 33 R. Szostak: Classifying Scholarly Theories and Methods versially, philosophical (primarily ethical in this case) gree of error. By basing the system in hopefully ex- evaluations of particular phenomena might also be haustive classifications, each of which has a specific better placed with the relevant scientific material. As place for each element, the system should excel in with critiques of scholarly practice, a notation that si- these respects as well. gnified philosophical analysis would be desirable. No- te that ethical “theories” can usefully be classified in 6. Concluding Remarks. terms of the five types of decision-making discussed above (Szostak, 2002). Subject searches of particular The main arguments of the paper can be summarized philosophical theories should nevertheless identify here. A simple 5W approach to typology allows the diverse applications. four key components of scholarship to be derived and Hunter (1988, ch. 8) identifies a handful of quali- then classified. These are phenomena/data, theory, ties to be sought in a classification system. The first is method, and scholarly practice. An exhaustive set of that each document should have a unique place. The the possibilities of scholarly exploration can thus be second is simplicity. One beauty of the proposed sy- identified. The 5W questions also guide a detailed ap- stem is that an overview can be provided in a handful preciation of the strengths and weaknesses of diffe- of tables: of phenomena, methods, theory types, and rent methods and types of theory. These classificati- so on. The organizing structure is transparent enough ons can and should form the basis of a superior sy- that any user should be able to “find” what to search stem for classifying scholarly documents, which for with ease. The third quality is brevity. Despite would allow searches by phenomenon, causal link, adding new elements (theory and method), the sy- theory type, method, and type of scholarly critique. stem of classification remains manageable. The pro- Scholars would thus cease re-inventing the wheel, posed classification can also be described more easily while readily identifying novel lines of inquiry. than existing systems. The fourth quality is hospitali- ty to new concepts. While this classification system is Notes based on (hopefully) exhaustive classifications, they are nevertheless flexible and there would most likely 1. The 5W approach is commonly used in journa- be an obvious place for new elements to be introdu- lism to describe the key elements that a story ced. An optional fifth quality is flexibility such that should possess. Journalists stress “what” the most individual users can change the system to suit their and “why” the least; in classifying scholarship no purposes. The final quality is expressiveness, so that question can be ignored. See, for example, Hough notation reflects the structure of the system. The lo- (1985). gical structure of the notation, plus the possibility of 2. Bailey (1994, 12) discusses several advantages of a often using the first letter of a phenomenon or me- typology: to identify where a particular type falls thod as notation, together suggest that this system along each dimension, to see which types are could excel in terms of expressiveness. most similar and most different, to ensure that Rowley (1992) describes two ratios by which the our classification is comprehensive, and to thus effectiveness of a “subject” index can be judged. The provide an inventory so that we “know at all ti- first, the recall ratio, compares the number of rele- mes what types are available for analysis”, and fi- vant documents retrieved relative to the number of nally to provide insight into how the various di- relevant documents in the system. The second (and mensions are related if it turns out that many easier to measure), the precision ratio, compares the “cells” are empty. Scholars can thus aspire to number of relevant documents retrieved to the total answer a host of questions which are rarely even number of documents retrieved. By identifying all of asked, such as: “Which methods are most simi- the phenomena, links, methods, theories, and types lar?,” and “What (types of) theory could we pos- of critique in a document, the proposed scheme sibly apply to a particular issue?” should aid recall enormously.12 Likewise, by avoiding 3. An attempt might be made to list those “grand” ad hocery and a disciplinary basis, while aiding recall, theories that aspire to cover links among most or it should greatly enhance precision. Rowley proceeds all phenomena of interest to scientists. In the so- to considerations of time, cost, and ease of use. Again, cial sciences and humanities there are probably by coding in terms of what people look for in a only about ten grand theories still embraced by a work, each should be greatly enhanced. Rowley clo- large number of scholars. Turner (2000) discusses ses by mentioning specificity, exhaustivity, and de- most of these. 34 Knowl. Org. 30(2003)No.1 R. Szostak: Classifying Scholarly Theories and Methods

4. Scholars such as Wallace, Ritzer, and Freidheim ry classification, in which either letter or number have bemoaned the tendency to classify theories codes were attached to second and third level only in terms of their philosophical or sociologi- phenomena: a particular occupation might be de- cal origins, rather than in terms of their internal signated SO97, where O stands for occupation, properties. Moreover, when internal properties and 97 represents the place of the particular oc- are discussed, there is disagreement as to whether cupation on some list of occupations. Note that this should be in terms of philosophical princi- notation serves to indicate where in the hierar- ples, some model of science, some view of the chical structure of phenomena a work fits; Mar- world, or the subject content of a theory (Freid- cella and Newton (1994, 48-54) urge notations heim, 1982, 4-7). that reflect hierarchy. The task of further unpak- 5. Potter (2000) and Bunge (1998) suggest that it is king would be greatly facilitated by the fact that both practical and desirable to utilize both inter- lengthy lists of such phenomena already exist pretivist and positivist approaches. Bunge also ar- within enumerative schemes. The schema would gues for the analysis of both individual and group simply determine where such elements fit. or institutional agency. The interpretivist/positi- 10. Marcella and Newton (1994, 60) applaud systems vist distinction is correlated with several other di- that allow “the expression of compound subjects stinctions, including qualitative/quantitative, em- via notational synthesis.” Rowley (1992, 240) ar- phasis on intentional/non-intentional, construc- gues that “... any tool for the organization of tivism/realism, and empasis on “what?” and knowledge must [among other things] take into “how?” versus “why?” In all cases, an argument account the relations between subjects.” that both types are needed is easily constructed. 11. Though it is not commonly recognized in the li- See Palys (1997), Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998), terature, Ranganathan’s five types of facet accord Seale (1999), and Oakley (2000). with the 5W typology. His personality facet ans- 6. Reliability concerns whether a particular result wers the “Who?” question, his “time period” and would likely be reproduced by similar research. “place” facets engage “When?” and “Where?”, his Validity refers to whether research accurately re- matter facet accords well with a simple “What?” flects reality. While some interpretivists, especial- question, and his energy facet, concerned as it is ly those who doubt the existence of an objective with the sort of process involved, reflects reaso- reality, are suspicious of these criteria, interpreti- nably well a “Why?” question. It is noteworthy vist research is generally evaluated in terms of that the literature often presents Ranganathan’s these (Oakley, 2000). five facets with little justification. A system more 7. Weinberg notes that approaches to indexing have firmly grounded in a 5W typology would be mo- tended to become simpler as full-text searching re easily justified. It would also be easier to recall has become possible. She notes, though, that full- and to utilize. text searching is often of limited utility in sear- 12. These classifications would, indeed, increase the ching for theories, as theoretical ideas can often likelihood that a researcher would be overwhel- be paraphrased in numerous ways. med by the number of relevant documents identi- 8. Scholars classify what they study, not what they fied. Ideally, they would thus both encourage and produce. This last task is performed by biblio- facilitate greater academic efforts to summarize graphers, whose duty is “to organize the know- research. See Willinsky (1999). ledge produced by specialists so that it may be available for whosoever requires it”, not to pro- References duce knowledge (Langridge, 1992, 18) . The sy- stem developed in this paper would provide bi- Bailey, Kenneth D. (1994) Typologies and Taxonomies: bliographers with a scientific basis from which to An Introduction to Classification Techniques. Thou- proceed. sand Oaks: Sage. 9. Szostak (2003) developed a simple notational Barnes, Barry (1995) The Elements of Social Theory. scheme whereby causal links are denoted by the Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. first letter of the category name: C ! S thus re- Bouma, Gary D., and GBJ Atkinson (1995) A Hand- presenting a link between some cultural pheno- book of Social Science Research. Oxford: Oxford menon and some element of social structure. A University Press. more complex system would be needed for libra- Knowl. Org. 30(2003)No.1 35 R. Szostak: Classifying Scholarly Theories and Methods

Bunge, Mario (1998) Social Science Under Debate: A Ragin, Charles C. (2000) Fuzzy Set Social Science. Chi- Philosophical Perspective. Toronto: University of cago: University of Chicago Press. Toronto Press. Rowley, Jennifer E. (1992) Organizing Knowledge. Cohen, Ira J. “Theories of Action and Praxis”, in 2nd ed. Aldershot: Ashgate. Bryan S. Turner, ed., The Blackwell Companion to Seale, Clive (1999) The Quality of Qualitative Research. Social Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. London: Sage. Freidheim, Elizabeth A. (1982) From Types to Theory: Singleton, Royce A. Jr., and Bruce C. Strait (1999) A Natural Method for an Unnatural Science. Wa- Approaches to Social Research. 3rd ed. New York: shington D.C.: University Press of America. Oxford University Press. Goldenberg, Sheldon (1992) Thinking Methodological- Svenonius, Elaine (2000) The Foundation of ly. New York: Harper Collins. Information Organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Gower, Barry (1997) Scientific Method: An Historical Press. and Philosophical Introduction. London: Routledge. Swift, D.F., V. Winn, and D. Bramer (1978) “‘About- Hough, George A. (1985) News Writing. 3rd ed. Bo- ness’ as a strategy for retrieval in the social scien- ston: Houghton-Mifflin. ces” Aslib Proceedings 30:5, May, 182-7. Hunter, Eric J. (1988) Classification Made Simple. Al- Szostak, Rick (2000) “Toward a Unified Human dershot: Gower. Science” Issues in Integrative Studies. 115-57. Langridge, D.W. (1992) Classification: Its Kinds, Ele- Szostak, Rick (2002) Unifying Human Ethics. Ms. ments, Systems, and Applications. London: Bowker. Under review. Lechner, Frank J. (2000) “Systems Theory and Func- Szostak, Rick (2003) A Schema For Unifying Human tionalism”, in Bryan S. Turner, ed., The Blackwell Science: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Culture. Companion to Social Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Selinsgrove PA: Susquehanna University Press. Little, David (1998) Microfoundations, Method, and Szostak, Rick (2003a) “Classifying Natural and Social Causation. New Brunswick NJ: Transactions Pu- Scientific Theories” Current Sociology 51:1, 27-49. blishers. Szostak, Rick (2003b) Classifying Science: Phenomena, Marcella, Rita, and Robert Newton (1994) A New Data, Theory, Method, Practice. Book manuscript Manual of Classification. Aldershot: Gower. in preparation. McNeill, Patrick (1990) Research Methods. 2nd ed. Tashakkori, Abbas, and Charles Teddlie (1998) Mixed London: Routledge. Methodology: Combining Quantitative and Qualita- Oakley, Ann (2000) Experiments in Knowing: Gender tive Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage. and Method in Social Science. New York: The New Turner, Bryan S. (2000), “Preface”, “Introduction”, in Press. The Blackwell Companion to Social Theory. Ox- Palmer, Carole L. (1996) “Information Work at the ford: Blackwell. Boundaries of Science: Linking Library Services to Weinberg, Bella Hass (1988) “Why Indexing Fails the Research Practices” Library Trends 45:2, Fall, Researcher” The Indexer 16:1, April, 3-6. 165-91. Willinsky, John (1999) Technologies of Knowledge: A Palys, Ted (1997) Research Decisions: Quantitative and Proposal for the Human Sciences. Boston: Beacon. Qualitative Perspectives. Toronto: Harcourt Brace. Ziman, John (2000) Real Science: What it is and what it Potter, Garry (2000) The of Social Science. means. New York: Cambridge University Press. Harlow UK: Prentice-Hall.