THEORY TESTING: THE LESSONS OF THE HERZBERG CONTROVERSY

Abstract

Theory testing is part of sociological analysis and the procedural aspects of problem solving are bounded, to a certain extent, by an “explicit set of operations” (Dubin, 1969). Broadly stated, validation assessment is judged to be satisfactory if the researcher interprets the theoretical constructs of the paradigm correctly, if he has used adequate methods to test the paradigm, and if the results are interpreted correctly (Whitsett and Winslow, 1967: 413). Unfortunately, most attempts at theory testing merely serve to highlight the discrepancy between what the researcher is obliged to do and what occurs in practice. On this basis, the research situation invariably leads to the prolongation of controversies in the social sciences. Importantly, if the prolongment of a controversy is taken as the gauge of the prevalence of interpretative and testing errors, then controversies are deserving of close scrutiny for the lessons they provide concerning the ways in which “the breakdown of a paradigm” (Kuhn, 1962) is inhibited. In making the assumption that a lengthy (and sometimes heated) controversy would provide a more varied lesson content, it follows that the means is provided for approaching the issue of theory testing from the standpoint of the inadequacy of the repeated tests of certain theories.

Citation

Russell, K.J. (1981), "THEORY TESTING: THE LESSONS OF THE HERZBERG CONTROVERSY", International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 46-61. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb012922