Abstract
The integration of theoretical knowledge is often seen as the ultimate goal of research activity in the social sciences. In this article I explore limits in the form and degree to which our knowledge can be integrated, as well as limits in the worth and desirability of some kinds of integration. Most of the analysis depends on drawing two kinds of distinctions in theoretical activity—between theoretical and metatheoretical work and among different types of integration in each kind of work. Using primarily examples from theory and research on justice issues, I articulate three different ways in which work at the theoretical level can be integrated. Each type represents a distinct kind of knowledge development, requires different criteria of evaluation, and involves a varying degree of difficulty to achieve. Nevertheless, each of these types of integration is well worth pursuing. Justice research shows evidence of work involving all three types. Using a somewhat broader range of examples, I also distinguish three different ways in which metatheoretical work might be integrated. Again, each type is quite distinct and should be evaluated in different ways. However, each of these types is significantly more difficult to achieve than any of the types of theoretical integration. Moreover, I suggest that the last metatheoretical type—involving the integration of entire strategies, perspectives or schools of thought—is probably not even a desirable goal. As a consequence of these analyses, I recommend (1) that social scientists in general (and justice researchers in particular) focus most of our attention on one or another of the types of theoretical integration, and (2) that we articulate clearly which type of integration we are pursuing and evaluate our success at the effort using only the appropriate criteria.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Some concepts are considerably less unitary in character. For example, the idea of “distributive justice” actually refers to an entire theory regarding how and when justice occurs (or perhaps to a fairly large set of causes and effects related to the concept). These more complex concepts are better understood as labels for the explanatory domains of the theories they refer to. They are not individual elements of the theories themselves but references to the entire theoretical edifice constructed from those elements.
Note that integrating theories are likely to attend to only most of the scope or entail only most of the principles of the earlier theories. Domains left out of the integrating theory are likely to be considered unimportant or epiphenomenal. Principles left out of the integrating theory are likely to be considered simplistic or limited in their applicability.
Note that specification of the equity and equality principles did not begin with Adams and Sampson. In fact, discussion of these two rules goes as far back as Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics.
Still other work on justice has focused on procedural justice. In these theories (see, e.g., Thibaut & Walker, 1975; Lind & Tyler, 1988), attention is focused on the fairness of the process by which distributions are determined, rather than on the outcomes that result. Using some of the same tools employed in integrating allocative and retributive justice, Törnblom and Vermunt (1999) have developed an integration of procedural justice with distributive justice.
Indeed, Thye has suggested a partial solution may lie in conceiving at least one aspect of the bargaining situation as collective and geared toward a group goal. Specifically, both actors in a bargaining situation have an interest in arriving at a mutually acceptable exchange. Thus, the actor’s pursuit of an individual interest in accumulating resources is framed by the necessity to work collectively in an exchange relation to achieve the individual goals
In fact, any attempt to develop a set of moral principles of justice—Platonic, Aristotelian, utilitarian, or Rawlsian—to which all can or should subscribe represents work at the level of a universe of discourse.
References
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.
Berger, J., Fisek, M. H., Norman, R. H., & Wagner, D.G. (1985). The formation of reward expectations in status situations. In J. Berger & M. Zelditch Jr. (Eds.), Status, rewards and influence: How expectations organize behavior (pp. 215–261). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Berger, J., Wagner, D. G., & Zelditch Jr. M. (1989). Theory growth, social processes, and metatheory. In J. Turner (Ed.), Theory building in sociology (pp. 107–123). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Berger, J., Wagner, D. G., & Zelditch Jr. M. (1992). A working strategy for constructing theories: State organizing processes. In G. Ritzer (Eds.), Metatheorizing (pp. 19–42). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Berger, J., Zelditch Jr. M., Anderson, B., & Cohen, B. P. (1972). Structural aspects of distributive justice: A status value formulation. In J. Berger, M. Zelditch Jr. & B. Anderson (Eds.), Sociological theories in progress (Vol. 2, pp. 119–146). Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Denzin, N. K. (1969). Symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology. American Sociological Review, 34, 922–934.
Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis for distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137–149.
Hawley, A. (1950). Human ecology: A theory of community structure. New York: Ronald.
Hegtvedt, K. A. (2006). Justice frameworks. In P. Burke (Ed.). Contemporary social psychological theories (pp. 46-69). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Hegtvedt, K. A., & Markovsky, B. (1995). Justice and injustice. In K. S. Cook, G. A. Fine & J. S. House (Eds.), Sociological perspectives on social psychology (pp. 256–280). New York: Allyn and Bacon.
Hogan, R., & Emler, N. P. (1981). Retributive justice. In M. J. Lerner & S. C. Lerner (Eds.), The justice motive in social behavior (pp. 125–143). New York: Plenum.
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World [revised edition, 1974].
Jasso, G. (1978). On the justice of earnings: A new specification of the justice evaluation function. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 1398–1419.
Jasso, G. (1980). A new theory of distributive justice. American Sociological Review, 45, 3–32.
Jasso, G. (1990). Methods for the theoretical and empirical analysis of comparison processes. Sociological Methodology, 20, 369–419.
Jasso, G. (1998). Exploring the justice of punishments: Framing, expressiveness, and the just prison sentence. Social Justice Research, 11, 397–422.
Jasso, G. (1999). How much injustice is there in the world? Two new justice indexes. American Sociological Review, 64, 133–168.
Jasso, G. (2001). Formal theory. In J. H. Turner (Ed.), Handbook of sociological theory (pp. 37–68). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Kingsley, D. (1959). The myth of functional analysis. American Sociological Review, 24, 757–772.
Lane, I., & Messe, L. (1971). Equity and the distribution of rewards. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20, 1–17.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.
Merton, R. K. (1949). Manifest and latent functions. In R. K. Merton (Ed.), Social theory and social structure (pp. 21–81). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Mikula, G. (1974). Nationality, performance and sex as determinants of reward allocation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 435–440.
Mikula, G. (1980). On the role of justice in allocation decisions. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice in Social Interaction (pp. 127–166). New York: Springer Verlag.
Miller, D. T., & Vidmark, N. (1981). The social psychology of punishment reactions. In M. J. Lerner & S. C. Lerner (Eds.), The justice motive in social behavior (pp. 145–173). New York: Plenum.
Parsons, T. (1937). The structure of social action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
Sampson, E. E. (1975). On justice as equality. Journal of Social Issues, 31, 45–64.
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975) Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Thye, S. (1999). Status influence and status value. In D. Willer (Ed.), Network exchange theory, (pp. 248–255). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Thye, S. (2000). A status value theory of power: Ratio level predictions for new exchange structures. American Sociological Review, 65, 407–432.
Törnblom, K. Y. (1988). Positive and negative allocations: A typology and a model for conflicting justice principles. In E. J. Lawler & B. Markvosky (Eds.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 5, pp. 141–168). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Törnblom, K. Y. (1992). The social psychology of distributive justice. In K. R. Scherer (Ed.), Distributive justice from an interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 177–284). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Törnblom, K. Y., & Jonsson, D. R. (1985). Subrules of the equality and contribution principles: Their perceived fairness in distribution and retribution. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 249–261.
Törnblom, K. Y., & Vermunt, R. (1998). The relationship between positive and negative outcome allocations and how they affect our justice conceptions. Social Justice Research, 11, 377–380.
Törnblom, K. Y., & Vermunt, R. (1999). An integrative perspective on social justice: Distributive vs. procedural fairness evaluations of positive and negative outcome allocations. Social Justice Research, 12, 37–61.
Wagner, D. G. (1995). Reward preferences in mixed-sex interaction. Small Groups Research, 26, 353–371.
Wagner, D. G. (2000). On the irrationality of rejecting falsified theories. Sociological Focus, 32, 27–39.
Wagner, D. G. (2006). Gender, status, and reward preference: An expectation states account. Manuscript under review.
Walster, E., Berscheid, E., & Walster, G. W. (1973). New directions in equity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 151–176.
Willer, D., Walker, H. A., Markovsky, B., Willer, R., Lovaglia, M., Thye, T., & Simpson, B. (2002) Network exchange theory. In J. Berger & M. Zelditch Jr. (Eds.), New directions in contemporary sociological theory (pp. 109–144). New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
Zimmerman, D. H., & Wieder, D. L. (1970). Ethnomethodology and the problem of order: Comment on Denzin. In J. Douglas (Ed.), Understanding everyday life (pp. 285–298). Chicago: Aldine.
Acknowledgement
I am indebted to Kjell Törnblom and Guillermina Jasso for valuable comments in revising the paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wagner, D.G. The Limits of Theoretical Integration. Soc Just Res 20, 270–287 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-007-0045-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-007-0045-9