Before theory comes theorizing or how to make
social science more interesting
Richard Swedberg
Abstract
The basic argument in this article is that sociology and social science more generally
are today severely hampered by the lack of attention being paid to theory.
Methods – qualitative as well as quantitative methods – have proven to be very
useful in practical research (as opposed to theory); and as a result they dominate
modern social science. They do not, however, do the job that belongs to theory.
One way to redress the current imbalance between methods and theory, it is suggested,
would be to pay more attention to theorizing, that is, to the actual process
that precedes the final formulation of a theory; and in this way improve theory.
Students of social science are today primarily exposed to finished theories and
are not aware of the process that goes into the production and design of a theory.
Students need to be taught how to construct a theory in practical terms (‘theorizing’);
and one good way to do so is through exercises. This is the way that methods
are being taught by tradition; and it helps the students to get a hands-on
knowledge, as opposed to just a reading knowledge of what a theory is all about.
Students more generally need to learn how to construct a theory while drawing
on empirical material. The article contains a suggestion for the steps that need to
be taken when you theorize. Being trained in what sociology and social science
are all about – an important precondition! – students may proceed as follows.
You start out by observing, in an attempt to get a good empirical grip on the
topic before any theory is introduced. Once this has been done, it may be time to
name the phenomenon; and either turn the name into a concept as the next step
or bring in some existing concepts in an attempt to get a handle on the topic. At
this stage one can also try to make use of analogies, metaphors and perhaps a
typology, in an attempt to both give body to the theory and to invest it with some
process. The last element in theorizing is to come up with an explanation; and at
this point it may be helpful to draw on some ideas by Charles Peirce, especially
his notion of abduction. Before having been properly tested against empirical
material, according to the rules of the scientific community, the theory should be
considered unproven. Students who are interested in learning more about theorizing
may want to consult the works of such people as Everett C. Hughes, C.
Wright Mills, Ludwig Wittgenstein and James G. March. Many of the issues that
are central to theorizing are today also being studied in cognitive science; and for
Richard Swedberg (Department of Sociology, Cornell University) (Corresponding author email: rs328@cornell.edu)
VC London School of Economics and Political Science 2016 ISSN 0007-1315 print/1468-4446 online.
Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden,
MA 02148, USA on behalf of the LSE. DOI: 10.1111/1468-4446.12184
The British Journal of Sociology 2016 Volume 67 Issue 1
those who are interested in pursuing this type of literature, handbooks represent
a good starting point. The article ends by arguing that more theorizing will not
only redress the balance between theory and methods; it will also make sociology
and social science more interesting.
Keywords: Theory; theorizing; metaphor; analogy; explanation; process
My general message in this paper is a positive one. I believe that social science,
including sociology, can take a major leap forward today and become much
more interesting. Social science has already made one such major leap during
the twentieth century, beginning with WWII. It was centred around methods,
and mainly had to do with the introduction of quantification into sociological
analysis.
Theory, in contrast, has not made similar progress. It is true that many single
contributions have been made since WWII, as exemplified by the work of such
outstanding individuals as Goffman, Bourdieu and some others. But the practical
skill of constructing and handling theories of the average sociologist has not
been similarly developed. One reason for this is that theory is not being taught
in an effective way to students. Again, compare this to methods, where students
can today take courses in both qualitative and quantitative methods, and once
these courses are over, be competent to use them in their research.
How then can we develop an approach to the teaching of theory that is as
effective as the current way of teaching methods? First of all, it should be made
clear that this must be a collective enterprise. There are many difficult issues to
address; and the insights of many people are needed. During the last five to six
years I have myself tried to contribute to this enterprise, which I refer to in my
mind as the theorizing project. I use the term ‘theorizing’ as a short-hand for a
better understanding of how a theory is put together; how it is handled in
empirical research – and how it can be taught in an effective manner.
I also use the verb ‘theorizing’ to emphasize the elements of process as well
as of trial-and-error that characterize the attempt to handle the theory part
when you do research. I oppose theorizing to ‘theory’, which as a noun gives
associations to something that is finished once and for all and typically exists in
a printed form. You have to engage in theorizing before you have a theory;
hence the title of this paper: ‘Before theory comes theorizing’.
During the past five to six years I have pursued two types of activities. I have
tried to develop some initial ideas about how to theorize; I have also taught
classes in theorizing, using exercises as in a methods class. The two activities are
closely connected in my mind; and if theorizing cannot be effectively taught,
something important is missing.
My first article appeared in 2012 and was programmatic in nature (Swedberg
2012b). I focused on the term ‘theorizing’ and tried to contrast it to ‘theory’,
arguing that theorizing belongs to the context of discovery and theory to the
6 Richard Swedberg
VC London School of Economics and Political Science 2016 British Journal of Sociology 67(1)
context of justification. This article was followed by an attempt to engage an
interdisciplinary group of social scientists in this enterprise, which resulted in an
anthology entitled Theorizing in Social Science (Swedberg 2014b). Around this
time I also decided that I should try to develop my own ideas in more detail;
and I did this in a book called The Art of Social Theory, which appeared in
2014 (Swedberg 2014a).
Today, about two years after I submitted the manuscript for my book, I have
had the time to think some more and to advance my ideas about theorizing. My
sense is that the general thrust of the theorizing project is sound, namely that
theorizing is a practical process that basically can be taught and learned. But I
also feel that many of the issues involved need to be much better understood.
In the rest of this paper I will therefore first give an account of my general
approach to theorizing. In doing so, I will present a new and updated version of
how I look at the process of theorizing. I will also take the opportunity to
address two topics that are not part of the process of theorizing itself but closely
related to it. The first has to do with the need to develop a literature on theorizing,
something that currently does not exist. The second has to do with how to
teach theorizing; and here I will argue for a closer relationship between social
theory and the theory of education.
An ABC of theorizing
It is in my view possible to isolate certain elements (or perhaps even steps) that
make up the theorizing process. By theorizing I mean the process that comes
before a theory is presented in its final form, which is usually a paper or a book.
Having said this, and in order to avoid a common misunderstanding, it should
immediately be added that it is impossible to theorize without a sound knowledge
of sociology. Think about it: you theorize not only in sociology but also in
law, economics, history, and so on; and each of these disciplines has its own and
pretty distinct way of theorizing. In law, you want to develop a legal mind; in
economics, an economic approach, etc.
So when I speak about theorizing in sociology, I am talking about the activity
of students who already have some basic knowledge of sociology and its theories.
Should this type of knowledge be taught separately from theorizing or
together with it? While this can be discussed, my own view is that since the two
are closely related, they should ideally be taught together or at least be taught
in a way that emphasizes their complementary nature.
One way to give a quick sense of the great importance of theorizing is to
relate it to the well-known distinction in the philosophy of science between the
context of discovery, on the one hand, and the context of justification, on the
other. The core idea behind this distinction is that there comes a moment in
your research when you develop your main insight. This insight, however,
Before theory comes theorizing 7
British Journal of Sociology 67(1) VC London School of Economics and Political Science 2016
cannot be presented in the form in which it occurs; it is much too intuitive and
underdeveloped for this (i.e. ‘context of discovery’). For this insight to become
acceptable to the scientific community, it has to be translated into a different
language, often in the form of hypotheses that are confronted with data (‘context
of justification’).
It is well established today that you can study creativity with the help of science,
including social science. The point I want to make here, however, is somewhat
different. Today students are nearly one hundred per cent exposed to
theory as it appears in the context of justification. That is, they only get to know
theory once it has been discovered and turned into its publishable version.
Each time they pick up a book or read an article, this official version of theory
is what subconsciously gets hammered into their heads. This means that the
actual way of discovering and developing a theory – the strange process of trial
and error that goes into it – is effectively hidden from the students.
It should also be pointed out that the type of knowledge that the students do
not get exposed to is of a very special kind. It is a practical kind of knowledge,
similar to the kind of knowledge you need to have in order to be able to ride a
bike or swim. Note also that what is involved is also a personal kind of knowledge,
in that it can only be acquired by the individual who actually does the biking
or the swimming – or the theorizing.
Theorizing takes place both in the context of discovery and the context of justification.
You need to be able to theorize in order to produce an insight about
the problem you are researching. At this stage you need to be able to handle
theory – to theorize – so that you can produce this insight. But you also, of
course, have to know how to construct a theory according to the rules that are
accepted in the profession. The latter is a skill that is relatively easy to learn;
and there exist several models to follow in articles and monographs. The way to
handle theory so that it helps you to develop an insight and a new understanding
of some phenomenon, however, is different in nature. Here you need a
practical kind of knowledge that is considerably harder to spell out. To some
extent this knowledge also differs from individual to individual, something that
adds to the difficulty both to encode it and teach it.
Still, there exist certain elements in the theorizing process that can be isolated
for pedagogical purposes and perhaps even placed in a kind of sequence; and it
is to this task that I shall now turn. To be precise, you cannot theorize, without
knowing how to use concepts, analogies, different ways to explain, and more.
Before saying a bit more about these elements (or steps), however, one more
point needs to be made. This is that it is also possible to start a new research
project by producing what I call a prestudy. The purpose of such a study is to
see if the topic you want to research will indeed yield to your efforts and let you
discover something new. In my personal view, it is both prudent and helpful to
start a research project with a prestudy.
8 Richard Swedberg
VC London School of Economics and Political Science 2016 British Journal of Sociology 67(1)
Alternatively, you can just proceed as usual: draw up a research design and
execute it according to the rules of the profession. There exist, however, good
reasons to believe that this way will just lead to more of the same rather than to
new insights. One such reason is that many research designs come into being
because the researcher has some intuition and strongly believes that it will lead
to some interesting results. In my experience, however, this rarely happens; and
this is because the original intuition is not based on enough knowledge of what
is actually going on. As a result, the data will not vindicate the original intuition
but instead lead in directions for which the researcher is unprepared. Speaking
from personal experience, a common response in this situation is to hold on to
the initial idea and try to squeeze ever more resistant data into it.
When you start your research with a prestudy, in contrast, you first make a
quick but deep dive into the phenomenon you want to study, but without following
any pet idea or big intuition – and also without being systematic or following
the usual rules for how to do sociological research. By attacking a topic
in this way – from each and every side, in a quick and dirty way – you have a
better chance to discover something new about it. And once you have a good
sense of what this novelty is, you are ready to theorize it, and to say something
interesting.
If you indeed find something new during the prestudy, you are ready to draw
up a research design and test if your theory is correct or not. Since the prestudy
is not based on a representative sample or carried out according to existing
rules, it may well be the case that your insight evaporates once it is confronted
with data in a systematic manner. But by proceeding in this way, you have a
chance of saying something new. Note also that if you do not find anything
interesting during the prestudy, there is not much reason to carry out a full
study, based on a conventional research design.
What then are the elements or steps in theorizing that can be isolated and perhaps
also taught? The first is observation. This may seem counterintuitive: does
not observation belong to methods and not to theory? In my view, this is a halftruth,
and a half-truth that can be destructive if it is not accompanied by the
statement that there are aspects of observation that clearly belong to theory.
One reason why observation also belongs to theory is that sociology is an
empirical science. In sociology you always start with observation, and you proceed
from there. A second reason is that some important parts of the process of
observation are based on theoretical considerations.
Rule number one when you carry out observation in such a way that it will
favour theorizing is that it has to be very, very broad in nature. It should include
objects and it should draw on all of the senses of the researcher as well as the
people she studies. You should also make an effort to tap an unusually broad
range of sources – movies, poetry, dreams, graffiti, newspaper articles or whatever.
The reason for this is that your aim at this stage is to try to find something
new, not to be methodical.
Before theory comes theorizing 9
British Journal of Sociology 67(1) VC London School of Economics and Political Science 2016
Another important theoretical point when it comes to observation is discussed
by Durkheim in one of his rules for how to conduct sociological research
(Durkheim 1964:15, 31). This is that you should not reproduce the categories
that people use in their everyday lives in your analysis, but go beyond these and
try to locate social facts.
A third theoretical point is that everything you observe does not qualify as
‘facts’. These have typically to be pulled out from what you observe; and this
can be a complex and difficult process. This procedure was already discussed by
Whewell, who called it ‘decomposition of facts’, and more recently it has also
been addressed by STS people, especially in studies of how scientists use instruments
and other procedures to produce the facts or the ‘representations’ that
can be studied (Whewell 1847: 33; Coopmans et al. 2014). Just as you may need
an electronic microscope to produce as well as see certain ‘facts’, you need to
know how to produce and see ‘social facts’.
During the observation, it is also important to not try to develop a theory.
Most people have a tendency to jump to conclusions, especially when they have
a pet theory. Theory must be based on a thorough type of knowledge of what is
being studied; and till this stage has been reached, it is imperative not to
develop any theory.
But let us say that you have found something of interest, that is, something
you did not expect and that the scientific literature is silent about. It could be a
major insight or a more modest one; but whichever it is, at this stage you want
to lock in the new insight so that is does not get lost. One way to do so is to give
your phenomenon a new name.
There exist different strategies for what kind of name to choose. Some people
prefer an already existing word, taken from everyday language; while others
find it more convenient to use a new or relatively new word, say from Latin or
Greek. Note also that since you are researching a sociological phenomenon,
you ideally want the name to reflect this. If you do this, it also becomes easier
to incorporate the new insight into the sociological tradition. If you call something,
say, ‘motherhood penalty’, you do not know if it refers to something
sociological or not. If you on the other hand call what you are studying ‘political
anomie’, you have already anchored it in the sociological literature.
By using the term political anomie, I have jumped ahead a bit and gone from
discussing a name to a concept. The difference between the two is roughly that
a scientific concept is constructed for a special purpose as opposed to an ordinary
term. An analytical effort has typically been made to single out what is
central to a phenomenon; scientific concepts should also be accompanied by a
definition.
At this stage of the theorizing process it may be helpful to bring in an already
existing concept (or several of these), to get a better handle on the phenomenon.
Herbert Blumer’s sensitizing concept helps you, for example, to both
focus on certain (sociological) facts and to further develop the concept itself
10 Richard Swedberg
VC London School of Economics and Political Science 2016 British Journal of Sociology 67(1)
(Blumer 1954). According to Whewell’s theory of colligation, scientific concepts
help you to tie together facts with the help of an idea. It does this, he says, in
the same way that a thread ties together a number of pearls into a necklace
(Whewell 1847: 48).
One can finally also use concepts after the manner of Weber and his theory
of ideal types. In this case, you assume that the actors have full knowledge; that
they are fully conscious of what they are doing; and that they act in a rational
manner. You then confront these assumptions with empirical reality, and try to
explain why the two diverge. The ideal type makes you ask questions you would
not otherwise have done.
Sociologists are sometimes satisfied with having developed a concept or
improved on an existing one, and stop at this point. But for a full theory, more
is needed. There exist several different ways for how to push ahead in this situation.
You can, for example, use a metaphor, in an attempt to better understand
what something is like and how it operates. You can also see if the phenomenon
is analogous to something else. Sociologists often use comparisons in their theorizing,
but when you use it in an analogy, you proceed in a very special way.
You do not so much look for similarities and differences but for a possible
structural similarity between something that is well understood and the phenomenon
you are studying.
It is also possible to move ahead when you theorize with the help of a typology.
Phenomena that are of the same kind, but still different, are often bunched
together in everyday words; and one way to disentangle things is to use a typology.
Love, for example, comes in many different forms; and so does, say, money
and capitalism. A skillful use of a typology can make it easier to see what elements
a phenomenon is made up of and also how these vary.
The last step in theorizing is to come up with an explanation. There exist
many different ways to explain things, dependent on the science involved.
There often also exist competing theories of explanations in the same science.
In sociology, for example, some explanations take the meaning of the actors
into account (say, Weber’s interpretive sociology), while others do not (say,
demography or rational choice sociology). The element of process is also
handled in different ways. Sometimes it is more or less neglected (as when simple
correlations are used); and sometimes it holds the centre-ground (as when
social mechanisms are used; e.g. Hedstr€om and Swedberg 1998; Beach and
Pedersen 2013).
It is hard to come up with a good explanation. In order to succeed, you often
have to draw on more than your capacity for logical reasoning, such as imagination
and your sense for intuition. To some extent this is true also for the other
stages in the theorizing process, but it is extra important here since the explanation
constitutes the centerpiece of a theory.
Several different types of thinking, in other words, go into the production of
an explanation. Guessing, speculation and imagining something that has not
Before theory comes theorizing 11
British Journal of Sociology 67(1) VC London School of Economics and Political Science 2016
existed before, are often disregarded in graduate education, but should
perhaps be part of it. What is often attributed to the unique talent of some
exceptional individual are often ways of thinking that are underdeveloped in
the average sociologist simply because they are thought to be outside the realm
of science.
Creating a tradition of theorizing
It is clear that theorizing and what goes under the heading of theory differ
on several important points. In the former, the emphasis is on the actual
practice of creating a theory, when working with empirical material. In the latter,
it is on existing theory as this can be found in published articles and
monographs.
It is also clear that without theory there will be no theorizing. It is in the existing
body of sociological works that the foundational positions of the discipline
can be found, and also more recent attempts to further develop these. A work
in theory sometimes contains information that is of interest to the task of
theorizing.
On the whole, however, there exists very little material on theorizing in
sociological studies. One reason for this is that most social scientists see
their work as culminating in the published study, while the versions that
precede this are seen as incomplete in nature and something you want to
leave behind. It is true that people these days often save the data for their
studies. This goes for qualitative as well as for quantitative sociologists; and
the discussion of Alice Goffman’s destruction of her data for On the Run
indicates that this may even be the norm today (e.g. Kotlowitz 2015). But a
data set tells nothing about the trial-and-error type of practice that goes
into the production of a theory.
Sometimes it is possible to find autobiographical accounts by social scientists
that contain some information that is of interest to theorizing. One example of
this is Sociologists at Work; and there exist more works of this type (Hammond
1967; for a list, see Platt 2015). Some of the accounts in these two works contain
information on how to theorize. But the desire to provide an autobiographical
account of how some study came into being is typically stronger than the interest
in describing how a theory emerges during the research process. Much of
theorizing, it can be added, also consists of silent knowledge. Highly talented
people in particular tend to do the right thing, without being able to give a very
helpful account of what they are doing.
Many works in theory, to repeat, occasionally touch on theorizing but typically
do so only in an off-hand and minor way. If you comb through the
collected works of say Weber or Bourdieu, you will find some extremely valuable
insights when it comes to theorizing. This is however a very laborious and
12 Richard Swedberg
VC London School of Economics and Political Science 2016 British Journal of Sociology 67(1)
time-consuming task. And we basically do not know very much about the ways
in which the major sociologists actually produced their theories, including
Weber and Bourdieu.
There does, however, exist one exception to the paucity of material on theorizing,
namely the works that were produced as part of the so-called theory construction
movement (e.g. Zhao 1996). During the 1960s and 1970s a number of
US sociologists tried to outline how a theory is constructed; they also started to
teach courses on this topic. The whole thing got off to a good start with the participation
of sociologists such as Arthur Stinchcombe and Herbert Blalock. But
after something like a decade, the whole thing came to an end. No more books
were published and no more courses were taught. In 1994 a conference was
held to explore why this happened, but no very good reason was found (Hage
1994; cf. Markovsky 2008).
In my own view, what happened was probably something like the following.
Very little work on theorizing existed by the time; and this made the task extra
difficult. While we today, for example, can draw on many studies in cognitive science
that are very helpful when you discuss various aspects of theorizing, this
was not the case in the 1960s and 1970s. The whole thing also perhaps ran out of
steam; and eventually even a creative person like Stinchcombe gave up. Still, his
two works in this genre – Constructing Social Theories (1968) and Theoretical
Methods in Social History (1978) – are still very useful for anyone interested in
theorizing.
Some of the work that was carried out under the label of theory construction
did not so much disappear as change identity (e.g. Zhao 1996; cf. Willer 1996).
It turned into what we today refer to as formal theory and/or mathematical
sociology. This type of work, however, does not address the full range of questions
in theorizing but often only those that are relevant for modelling. Still, the
works of people like James Coleman, David Willer and many others must not
be disregarded by theorizers.
The fact that there exists so little knowledge about theorizing today means
that that there is a great need for material of this type. Textbooks in theorizing
as well as articles on many of its aspects are needed; and some of this material
will hopefully also appear within soon. Again, theorizing is a collective enterprise,
so it is crucial that many sociologists get involved – theorists, methodologists,
people who do quantitative studies as well as people who do qualitative
studies; and so on.
In the meantime, I would like to point to some individuals whose work I
have found very valuable, and whose insights need to be better known as well
as further explored. One of these is philosopher and polymath Charles Sanders
Peirce (1839–1914), best known for his contribution to logic, semiotics and
pragmatism. Peirce explicitly dealt with theorizing, for example in a lecture
called ‘How to Theorize’, delivered in 1903 in Cambridge, Massachusetts
(Peirce 1903; cf. Swedberg 2012a). Theorizing is also part of his general model
Before theory comes theorizing 13
British Journal of Sociology 67(1) VC London School of Economics and Political Science 2016
for how to do science, which was based on his strong interest in natural science
(for Peirce’s view of sociology, see e.g. Swedberg 2011).
This general model provides a good sense not only for how Peirce viewed the
way science should be conducted, but also for his idea that it is imperative to
develop and draw on different habits of thinking during the different phases of
a scientific inquiry. You start out by intense observation, according to Peirce.
You continue with this till you are surprised; and the surprise comes from finding
something that should not be there according to the current state of scientific
knowledge.
The next step is very different. You now have to come up with an idea for
what explains the facts that caused the surprise – what Peirce famously calls
abduction. This is the most difficult and sensitive part of the whole research
process, in his view. You cannot, for example, come up with an idea for an
explanation just by thinking very hard or by drawing on existing knowledge.
What you are after, he says, is something new, something that does not yet
exist.
The only way to get an idea is to somehow access the less conscious parts of
your mind (e.g. Peirce 1929). The key is therefore to train yourself to become
better at reaching into these parts of your mind; and to turn this type of thinking
into a habit. To get access to the subconscious parts of your mind, you need to
do things like relax and daydream, according to Peirce. When you do this, you
will also be helped by the fact that the human mind is preprogrammed to deal
with two most important problems that face human beings: reproduction and
survival.
Peirce insists that an abduction is only useful on two conditions. First, it must
be possible to test it empirically; and second, the test must be successful. The
testing part is called induction by Peirce. This stage is preceded by deduction,
during which the researcher tries to deduct hypotheses to test from the original
idea or abduction. The three steps in Peirce’s model are thus: abduction, deduction
and induction.
I have found Peirce very helpful in my own work on theorizing, and when I
have a problem I usually try to see what he has to say. Peirce is, for example,
very helpful when it comes to approaching difficult topics, such as causality, the
nature of an analogy, and the like. His advocacy of more visual thinking is also
very suggestive.
When you want to deal with a very difficult issue, Peirce says, you should proceed
as follows (Peirce 1997: 205–7). You first write down all the arguments in
favor of a certain position; and then do the same with the counterarguments.
When this has been done, you try to figure out what the truth is and what
method you need to use to reach it. You then repeat this procedure something
like three times, with some time in between. Once this has been done, and if
you continue to struggle with the problem every year for a period of some 6–12
years, you will acquire a very solid view of the problem. The reason for
14 Richard Swedberg
VC London School of Economics and Political Science 2016 British Journal of Sociology 67(1)
proceeding in this laborious and time-consuming way, Peirce repeatedly says, is
his own ‘stupidity’ (1997: 206–7; emphasis added). I mention this statement
about stupidity by Peirce to indicate that theorizing can be a very humbling
experience because of the difficulties involved.
The solid type of knowledge you develop, if you follow Peirce’s advice, is
exceptionally useful to have. But once you face a specific problem and need to
come up with an abduction, what else should you do apart from trying to somehow
access your subconscious? There does exist one other way to proceed,
according to Peirce, and that is to use your capacity for visual thinking. You do
this, he says, by translating your problem into a very special type of visual representation,
namely, a diagram of the type that allows you to work out a solution
(see Peirce 1906; Swedberg 2015). This is how scientists often proceed, according
to Peirce.
Another person who is inspiring when it comes to theorizing is Wittgenstein.
The central theme in his work is that we need to better understand the role of
language in human affairs. This is also something that it is absolutely crucial to
be good at if you are to theorize well in social science. Related to this, you have
to observe how people use language in a very careful way (e.g. Gert 1997). In
Witttgenstein’s view it is also important to hold off on the analysis till you have
sufficiently observed what is going on. ‘Don’t think but look!’ (Wittgenstein
1953: 66e; emphasis added).
Once the stage of observations is over, you need to find an explanation for
your phenomenon; and Wittgenstein’s way of writing mirrors this search in an
interesting way. While philosophers and social scientists typically only present
their conclusions, and the logic that informs them, Wittgenstein proceeds differently.
He first of all tries to attack a problem from many sides – from the front,
from the side, from whatever side that will let him move forward. All of this is
recorded in his texts, and in a such a way that his thinking is nearly made visible
to the reader. Note also that this way of proceeding allows Wittgenstein to
move forward and theorize more effectively. Another interesting quality of his
theorizing style of writing, is that it can only be fully appreciated if the reader is
willing to enter into Wittgenstein’s way of thinking and to work with the problem
he is struggling with.
Here is a typical statement by Wittgenstein that needs to be developed by
the reader:
People nowadays think that scientists exist to instruct them, poets, musicians,
etc. to give them pleasure. The idea that these have something to
teach them – that does not occur to them. (Wittgenstein 1980: 36e)
We can learn certain things from artists, Wittgenstein says, but does that also
include things that help us to theorize better? I would argue that this is the case;
and I can see that a dialogue between artists and social scientists would be very
helpful. Both social scientists and artists, for example, observe very carefully
Before theory comes theorizing 15
British Journal of Sociology 67(1) VC London School of Economics and Political Science 2016
what they want to represent. Do their ways of proceeding, once the phase of
observation is over, differ in some fundamental way? Or do they have some
things in common (as e.g. suggested in Goodman 1976)?
It can be argued that the insights about theorizing that can be found in the
work of Peirce and Wittgenstein are of a general nature, and do not only fit
sociology but also many other sciences. This is true. But there also exist sociologists
whose work is of direct relevance for theorizing just in sociology. One of
these is Everett C. Hughes (1897–1983), best known for his fieldwork and for
being the successor of Robert Park as the leader of the Chicago School.
Hughes wrote nothing on theory, and his comments on theorizing are scattered
throughout his work. This has created the impression that he had no interest
in theory (e.g. Becker 1998: 1–3, Shils 2006: 52). This, however, is wrong. It
is true that Hughes was scornful of what went under the heading of ‘theory’ in
sociology. Hughes, however, had trained himself as a theoretician, namely by
reading Weber and Simmel; and over the years he developed his own, very
subtle version of sociological theory. In many ways this type of theory is close to
what has been called theorizing in this paper; and it basically consists of practical
advice for how to use theory when you try to make sense of empirical data.
Besides Hughes’ writings, there also exists one other source of information
for his ideas on theorizing. This is one of Hughes’ students, who early realized
that Hughes was trying to develop a very special and practical kind of theoretical
knowledge. His name is Howard Becker; and the book in which he presents
Hughes’s view of theorizing is called Tricks of the Trade (1998).
From working with Hughes on various research projects, Becker got an
opportunity to see him in action. According to Hughes, a sociologist should for
example always take what powerful people say with a great deal of reservation
(‘doubt everything anyone in power tells you’ – Becker 1998: 91). Sociologists
know that power makes you see things from a biased perspective; but what matters
when it comes to theorizing, is to formulate insights like this in the form of
practical guidelines – as Hughes here does. It should be added that this particular
piece of advice is also important for another reason: it shows how a topic
like power can be worked into the theorizing project.
Hughes was of the opinion that in order to handle theory well in empirical
research, you basically need two kinds of knowledge. You first of all need to
develop what Hughes calls ‘the sociological eye’ (Hughes 1984). This type of
knowledge has to be very deep, so deep in fact that you can draw on it without
hardly thinking. If you can instinctively zoom in on what is social – interactions,
structures, groups, institutions and so – you have the sociological eye.
The second type of knowledge that a sociologist needs to have, according to
Hughes, is concepts. Like many sociologists, he seems to have been more interested
in teaching students concepts than to present them with full theories.
According to Hughes, it is important to know a pretty large number of concepts
if you want to be good at sociology.
16 Richard Swedberg
VC London School of Economics and Political Science 2016 British Journal of Sociology 67(1)
Hughes also said that you do not need to have a very deep knowledge of
these concepts. It is enough to have a general sense of what they are about.
One way to acquire this type of light knowledge is to study the index of a book.
Students also respond more positively to concepts that are somewhat loose in
their formulation, according to Hughes, than if they are rigorously defined.
The work of C. Wright Mills also contains some very valuable advice for
those who are interested in theorizing. There is first and foremost the important
appendix to The Sociological Imagination, which is called ‘On Intellectual
Craftmanship’ (Mills 1959: 195–226). It contains a somewhat different approach
than Tricks of the Trade to the kind of knowledge you need to have, in order to
theorize well. Like Becker, however, Mills gives the reader advice on how to do
things that are eminently practical in nature.
The Sociological Imagination is a classic and often referred to in a very positive
way. The targets for Mills’ anger – Parsons, Lazarsfeld and their students –
are by now all gone; and few sociologists these days feel that the book is aimed
at their way of doing sociology. This is also what you would expect, but what is
truly strange is that amidst all the praise for Mills’ book, practically no sociological
attention has been paid to its central them: imagination.
As it turns out, imagination is not very much studied in the other social sciences
either, psychology included. There are many reasons for this, but the point I
want to make here is that in order to theorize well you need imagination. You
need to know what imagination is; you need to cultivate it; and if you have to
turn it into a kind of habit a la Peirce. According to Sartre, imagination allows
us to get a sense for that which is not, for that which does not exist (Sartre
2004). This is a very broad definition, but helpful in the sense that when you do
research and are surrounded by facts, you need to somehow make sense of it
all; and imagination is one of the few tools that helps you to do that.
There exist several other interesting ideas about theorizing in the work of
Mills. One of these is his notion of what makes a work into a classic in social science
(Mills 1960). The interesting answer that Mills gives is the following. What
makes a theory truly classical is its capacity to inspire researchers to create new
theories with its help. Classics like Marx, Weber and Durkheim have inspired
many new theories. According to Mills, another sign of a classic is that even if
the new theory turns out to be wrong, the classical theory is not refuted or finished
by this. The reason for this is that it still has the capacity to inspire others
to theorize and invent new theories.
Another person whose work on theorizing I find inspiring is James G. March.
His most important contribution can be found in a work, co-authored with
Charles Lave, called An Introduction to Models in the Social Sciences (1975). It
can be described as a textbook in theory construction, addressed to students in
social science in general, not just sociologists.
The style in which An Introduction is written was consciously chosen by the
authors to make the students learn to theorize. The students are often told to
Before theory comes theorizing 17
British Journal of Sociology 67(1) VC London School of Economics and Political Science 2016
stop reading, and not to proceed until they have answered some questions that
the authors consider important to address in order to take the next step towards
a solution (‘STOP AND THINK’). The reason for this, according to the
authors, is what they call Gresham’s Law of Study. Reading, they say, drives
out thinking. It does this because it represents a well-known intellectual technology
that we all master, while thinking is much harder to engage in and also
to measure.
What March and his co-author particularly want the students to learn is how
to speculate. In order to produce good social science, they argue, it is crucial to
know how to speculate – to guess, to imagine, and to come up with new and
strange ideas. It is crucial to be logical and consistent, but it is not enough. You
also have to know how to speculate. ‘Speculation is the soul of the social sciences’
(Lave and March 1975: 3; emphasis added).
An Introduction is intended as ‘a practical guide to speculation’; and it is centred
around models and their use (Lave and March 1975: 2). The authors believe
that the best way to teach students how to theorize is to make them familiar
with a small number of standard models in the social sciences. They also try to
teach them the logic behind these models, so that the students will be able to
use them in new circumstances. Lave and March focus on a handful of wellknown
models that deal with topics such as diffusion, choice and adaptation.
It can be argued that by using Lave and March’s approach you run the risk of
not teaching the students how to construct a model on their own, but only to
apply a number of standard models (e.g. Sorensen 1978). There is a certain
truth to this charge. It is also true that theorizing with models comes with certain
risks. There is sometimes a tendency, for example, for modelers to ignore
the role of sociological concepts and also to fail to link up the model properly
to the sociological tradition.
On the other hand, model building has its advantages. A model typically
attempts to cover the full process of some phenomenon, as expressed in one
clear statement, with full transparency about the way in which its parts interact.
It is also often possible to experiment with a model and see if something interesting
happens when its logic is pushed to the limit.
The last source of inspiration for theorizing that I have found very valuable is
cognitive science. During the last couple of decades the interdisciplinary field of
cognitive science has developed very quickly and generated an impressive number
of insights. Sociologists have not made much use of these, which is a pity.
Sociology has, of course, its own stable foundations; and there exists no reason to
replace these with cognitive science. In fact, sociology is often needed to correct
the tendency in cognitive science to ignore context and also to be universalistic.
But it is also clear that sociologists have failed to address a number of topics
that are important to theorizing, and that cognitive scientists have already been
working on for several decades. Two of these topics are concepts and analogies.
Cognitive scientists have also developed some important insights in other areas
18 Richard Swedberg
VC London School of Economics and Political Science 2016 British Journal of Sociology 67(1)
where sociologists are active but have not been particularly innovative. Studies
of meaning, memory and emotions are some examples of this.
Before saying something about these advances, it should also be noted that
according to many cognitive scientists human beings have an inborn capacity to
explain (e.g. Gopnik and Meltzoff 2000). This capacity follows an inner course
of development during which it also interacts with social reality in a complex
way. Theorizing, it would seem, is part of this capacity.
While sociologists typically cling to the classical theory of concepts (or the
idea that a concept must fulfill sufficient and necessary conditions), cognitive
scientists have established that this theory cannot explain how concepts are
actually being used. In short, the theory of language games and similar theories
in cognitive science are better at capturing what is going on than the classical
theory (e.g. Laurence and Margolis 2011). What the consequences of this are
for the construction and use of scientific concepts, is, on the other hand, a topic
that needs to be better understood.
Cognitive scientists have also for quite some time tried to understand how
human beings use analogies and what these are like (e.g. Gentner 2003). What
exactly is taken from one topic (the so-called source); and what happens when
it is applied (mapped) to another topic (the target)? Much experimental work
has been carried out on analogies; there also exists cognitive-historical research
on how someone like Maxwell tried to solve theoretical problems with the help
of analogies (Nersessian 2008).
Sociologists study emotions, and so do cognitive scientists. They do this in
somewhat different ways, however; with cognitive scientists being more interested
in the biological dimension, and sociologists in their flexibility and variation.
Damasio and others have, for example, established that something
essential is missing from human beings whose brains have been damaged in the
areas that control the emotions (Damasio 2003). This suggests that emotions
play a role in everything that human beings do, including thinking and theorizing.
We need to better understand the role of emotions, in short, to better
understand theorizing.
Ever since Weber sociologists have also been interested in the topic of meaning;
and there now exists a huge sociological and anthropological literature on
this subject. Little analytical work, however, has been carried out on the theoretical
structure of meaning, which is a very difficult topic. It is also a very
important one since meaning is central to human existence and what differentiates
important parts of the social sciences from the natural sciences.
Cognitive scientists sometimes work with a nearly behaviouristic attitude to
meaning, but there are also exceptions. There exist today a few cognitive scientists
who do research on meaning (see e.g. G€ardenfors and Johansson 2005;
G€ardenfors 2013). The importance of pointing at things, and in this way attract
the attention of others to something, is, for example, currently being
explored. It has also been established that if you understand the meaning
Before theory comes theorizing 19
British Journal of Sociology 67(1) VC London School of Economics and Political Science 2016
of something, it will be easier to remember it. The human capacity to fill in
missing parts of cognitive patterns is another interesting area of research.
Memory represents yet another area where theorizers can learn from
research in cognitive science. It also takes us to another topic, namely the educational
dimension of theorizing. The reason why the two sometimes overlap is
that theorizing primarily draws on a special type of practical knowledge; and
this knowledge stands and falls with the ease with which it can be learned and
remembered.
While it is generally acknowledged that cognitive scientists have not developed
the science of learning that many hope for, some of their results are very
interesting and can be used to improve educational practices. One of these is
that you learn more if you do the learning in different environments and do not
remain in one single place, even if it is your own study or favorite place in the
library (e.g. Carey 2014: 61–2). Another insight is that if you want to teach students
something like five different types of X, they will learn this better if you
discuss all five at the same time, instead of first discussing one, then another,
and so on (see e.g. Brown, Roediger III and MacDaniel 2014: ch.3). A third
result is that repetition is not the most efficient way to learn, but retrieval (e.g.
Brown, Roediger III and MacDaniel 2014: Ch. 2). If you want to remember
something, you should not go back to your book and read your underlinings;
you should instead be patient and try to recall what you have read by walking
back, so-to-speak, in your mind.
Concluding remarks
I would consider this paper to be a success if it makes the reader feel that theorizing
should be high on the agenda for sociology today, and especially so if she
also feels encouraged to work on her own capacity to theorize. Theorizing is a
very personal enterprise, in the sense that it is something that everyone must do
for themselves. Theorizing, in brief, has a distinctly existential dimension. It is
also very democratic in the sense that you should in principle not let anyone
theorize for you. The reasons for this are similar as the ones that Kant advance
in his well-known argument why you should not let anyone think for you (Kant
[1784] 1970).
But theorizing, to repeat, is also a collective enterprise. The issues that it
raises are collective in many senses. They are, for example, often very difficult,
and you therefore need the input of many people, and this over time. You also
need advances in many different areas, from epistemology to education, and
much more.
Some of the tools of theorizing are also collective in the sense that you need
to interact with others in order to become more skilled in your own use of
them. Educational practices fall, for example, in this category. How are we to
20 Richard Swedberg
VC London School of Economics and Political Science 2016 British Journal of Sociology 67(1)
develop useful exercises for theorizing that can be used in classes if not through
a process of collective trial-and-error? You first have to design the exercises,
then use them, then re-design them based on what happens when they are used,
and so on.
More generally, it is true that much of what needs to be done in the area of theorizing
is still waiting to be done. The number of topics that have to be addressed,
if theorizing is to really get off the ground and be successfully institutionalized, is
huge; and surely not the task for a single individual. Every sociologist needs to be
able to theorize, and the more people who realize this, the quicker the project of
theorizing will advance. And the more interesting social science will become!
(Date accepted: November 2015)
Bibliography
Beach, Derek and Pedersen, Rasmus Brun
2013 Process-Tracing Methods: Foundations
and Guidelines, Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
Becker, Howard 1998 Tricks of the Trade:
How to Think about your Research While
You’re Doing It, Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Blumer, Herbert 1954 ‘What is Wrong with
Social Theory?, American Sociological
Review 19(1 February): 3–10.
Brown, Peter, Roediger III, Henry and
McDaniel, Mark 2014 Make It Stick: The
Science of Successful Learning, Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Carey, Benedict 2014 How We Learn: The
Surprising Truth about When, Where, and
Why It Happens, New York: Random House.
Coopmans, Catelijne, Vertesi, Janet, Lynch,
Michael and Woolgar, Steve (eds) 2014
Representation in Scientific Practice Revisited,
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Damasio, Antonio 2003 Looking for Spinoza:
Joy, Sorrow and the Feeling Brain
New York: Mariner Books.
Durkheim, Emile 1964 The Rules of
Sociological Method, New York: The Free
Press.
G€ardenfors, Peter and Johansson, Petter
(eds) 2005. Cognition, Education, and Communication
Technology, New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
G€ardenfors, Peter 2013 Lusten att f€orsta˚
(The Desire to Understand), Stockholm:
Natur & Kultur.
Gentner, Dedre 2003 ‘Analogical learning
and reasoning’ in Daniel Reisberg (ed.)
Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science, London:
Nature Publishing Company.
Gert, Heather 1997 ‘Wittgenstein on Description’,
Philosophical Studies 88: 221–43.
Goodman, Nelson 1976 Languages of Art,
2nd ed., Indianapolis, IN: Hacket Publishiung
Company.
Gopnik, Alison and Meltzoff, Andrew 2000
The Scientist in the Crib: What Early Learning
Tells Us About the Mind, New York:
William Morrow.
Hage, Jerald (ed.) 1994 Formal Theory in
Sociology, Albany, NY: State University of
New York Press.
Hammond, Philip (ed.) Sociologists at
Work, New York: Basic Books.
Hedstr€om, Peter and Swedberg, Richard
(eds) 1998 Social Mechanisms: An Analytical
Approach to Social Theory, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hughes, Everett C. 1984 The Sociological
Eye: Selected Papers, New Brunswick:
Transaction Press.
Kant, Immanuel [1784] 1970 ‘An answer to
the question: “What is Enlightenment?’” in
Hans Reiss (ed.) Kant’s Political Writings,
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Before theory comes theorizing 21
British Journal of Sociology 67(1) VC London School of Economics and Political Science 2016
Kotlowitz, Alex 2015 ‘Deep Cover: Alice
Goffman’s “On the Run’”, New Republic
June 26. Downloaded on July 30, 2015 from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/29/books/
review/alice-goffmans-on-the-run.html?_r50
Laurence, Stephen and Margolis, Eric 2011
‘Concepts’, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Downloaded on June 1, 2014 from
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concepts/
Lave, Charles and March, James G. [1975]
1993 An Introduction to Models in the
Social Sciences, New York: University Press
of America.
Markovsky, Barry 2008 ‘Graduate Training
in Sociological Theory and Theory Construction’,
Sociological Perspectives 51(2): 423–45.
Mills, C. Wright 1959 The Sociological
Imagination, New York: Oxford University
Press.
Mills, C. Wright (ed.) 1960 Images of Man:
The Classic Tradition in Sociological Thinking,
New York: George Brazillier, Inc.
Nersessian, Nancy 2008 Creating Scientific
Concepts, Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Peirce, Charles S. 1903 Lowell Lectures of
1903. Eighth Lecture, Abduction, MS 475.
Peirce, Charles S. 1906 ‘Prolegomena to an
Apology for Pragmatism’, The Monist
16(4): 492–546.
Peirce, Charles S. 1929 ‘Guessing’, The
Hound & Horn 2(3(Spring)): 267–85. Available
on the web.
Peirce, Charles S. 1997 Pragmatism as
a Principle and Method of Right Thinking,
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Platt, Jennifer 2015 ‘Biographie in der
Sozialgeschichte’ in Christian Daye and Stephan
Moebius (eds) Soziologiegeschichte,
Berlin: Suhrkamp.
Sartre, Jean-Paul 2004 The Imaginary: A
Phenomenological Psychology of the Imagination,
London: Routledge.
Shils, Edward 2006 A Fragment of A Sociological
Autobiography, New Brunswick:
Transaction Publishers.
Sorensen, Aage 1978 ‘Mathematical Models
in Sociology’, Annual Review of Sociology 4:
345–71.
Stinchcombe, Arthur 1968 Constructing
Social Theories, Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Stinchcombe, Arthur 1978 Theoretical
Methods in Social History, New York: Academic
Press.
Swedberg, Richard 2011 ‘Charles Peirce and
the Sociology of Thinking’ in Christofer
Edling and Jens Rydgren (eds) Sociological
Insights of Great Thinkers, New York:
Praeger.
Swedberg, Richard 2012a ‘On Charles S.
Peirce’s Lecture “How to Theorize”
(1903)’, Sociologica 2: 1–27.
Swedberg, Richard 2012b ‘Theorizing in
Sociology and Social Science: Turning to the
Context of Discovery’, Theory and Society 41:
1–40.
Swedberg, Richard 2014a The Art of Social
Theory, Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Swedberg, Richard (ed.) 2014b Theorizing
in Social Science: The Context of Discovery,
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Swedberg, Richard 2015 ‘Visualizing Theory?
On Theory Pictures and Theorizing Diagrams
in Sociology’, Unpublished paper.
Whewell, William 1847 History of the
Inductive Sciences. Vol. 2, A new ed., London:
John W. Parker and Son.
Willer, David 1996 ‘The Prominence of Formal
Theory in Sociology’, Sociological Forum
11(2): 319–31.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1953 Philosophical
Investigations, New York: Macmillan.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1980 Culture and
Value, Trans. Peter Winch. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Zhao, Shanyang 1996 ‘The Beginning of the
End or the End of the Beginning? The
Theory Construction Movement Revisited’,
Sociological Forum 11(2): 305–18.
22 Richard Swedberg
VC London School of Economics and Political Science 2016 British Journal of Sociology 67(1)