Teaching Yourself How to Write a Thesis: Several Easy Steps

Paper Prepared for Submission as an Article to Teaching Sociology

Michael A. Dover

Central Michigan University

Abstract

This article presents a case study of the structure and logic of the author’s dissertation, in order to

facilitate the preparation of the proposals and introductory sections of undergraduate and

graduate student theses and dissertations. Designed for use in proposal writing seminars or

methods courses, the article stresses the value of identifying the originating, specifying and

subsidiary research questions; clarifying the subject and object of the research, and situating

research within an particular research tradition. It explains the value of competing theses

approaches to social research, and discusses how identifying the conceptual problems and

empirical problems addressed can be helpful in clarifying the logic behind the conceptual and

operational definitions utilized. The article is applicable mainly to theses and dissertations which

seek to explicitly use sociological theory to guide or inform empirical research. It seeks to

demystify the process of doing so via lessons learned by a recent student.

Table of Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Method of the Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Research Topic as an Exercise of the Sociological Imagination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Topic and originating, specifying and subsidiary questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Topic as Object and Subject of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Social Policy and Sociological Relevance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Research Tradition: What is a Research Tradition Anyway? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Conceptual Framework: Conceptual Problem Addressed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Ontological, Epistemological, and Methodological Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Research Design: Empirical Problem Addressed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

1

Introduction

When I was a graduate student, navigating the dire straits of my doctoral program, my

ship was well provisioned with gifts of theory, method, data analysis, and advisement. But it

seemed sometimes as if the key to the sea was missing, as if the bag of tricks I had been given

was only blowing me back to the bay from which I had begun. It was as if there were still

sociological gods and goddesses to placate before I could cross between the rock of theory and

the hard place of data analysis.

I would ask myself: How can I integrate my interests in sociological theory with my

interests in empirical research? Is my topic too far afield from what is considered sociological?

What sociological research tradition am I writing in? How can I develop an original conceptual

framework or an innovative empirical approach? What if my hypothesis isn’t supported by my

findings? How can I write something which is simultaneously relevant to social theory and to

social policy or social problems? Is my question really an important one?

There was no shortage of books to which I could turn for answers (Ragin 1994; Becker

1998; Berg 1998). These included volumes on writing theses and dissertations (Becker 1986;

Rudestam and Newton 1992; Turabian 1996; Giarrusso et al 1994), as well as about the

mysteries of epistemology (Little 1991; Martin and McIntyre 1994). Also, I discovered that the

growing literature on the critique of published research can be applied to your own work (Katzer,

Cook and Crouch 1998; Tripodi, Fellin and Meyer 1969; Black 1993; Stern and Kalof 1993).

But I found little in a search of the peer reviewed literature in sociology which was

designed to help students think through the logic and structure of a research proposal or the

introductory section of a senior thesis, master’s thesis or dissertation. For instance, a search of

2

all volumes of the journal Teaching Sociology shows that no article has addressed teaching about

the preparation of theses or dissertations, despite the fact that seminars about doing so are an

important part of teaching in the field, and the preparation of research proposals is a frequent

assignment in sociological methods classes. This article presents the lessons learned from the

preparation of the prospectus and introduction of a single completed dissertation. In doing so,

the article seeks to achieve a number of objectives.

First, it explains the value of distinguishing between the originating, specifying and

subsidiary questions of a research project (Kimeldorf 1988; Tilly 1990). Second, it stresses the

importance of clearly distinguishing between the subject and object of the research (Ragin and

Zaret 1983). Third, it explains the value of incorporating an explicit section on the thesis’s

sociological relevance, as well as a section on the topic’s social policy relevance, if appropriate

to the topic. Fourth, it proposes identifying the specific sociological research tradition within

which the thesis is written. Fifth, it explains the competing theses approach to the integration of

theory into social research (Platt 1966; Laudan 1977; Fligstein 1990; Romanelli 1989; Tucker,

Hurl and Ford 1994). Sixth, it discusses the relationship between the use of existing theories and

originally defined concepts derived from those theories as part of the development of the thesis’s

conceptual framework. Finally, it demonstrates how distinguishing between conceptual

problems and empirical problems was helpful in clarifying the logic behind the conceptual and

operational definitions employed as part of the thesis’s overall research design (Laudan 1977).

These objectives contribute to the goal of an article of possible use in learning and teaching in the

discipline of sociology and related fields.

This article is applicable mainly to what are referred to as generalist theses, rather than

3

theses referred to as specialist in nature. Works which contain most of the following kinds of

elements are defined as being generalist in nature: (1) a topic and a research question or problem

which are relevant to social theory, social policy, or social problems, (2 (a literature review of the

topic, its sociological or policy relevance, (3) a discussion of the research tradition within which

the work is being done, (4) a conceptual framework including specific theoretical perspectives,

conceptual definitions and identified hypotheses, (5) identification of the ontological,

epistemological, and methodological assumptions, (6) empirical data and results relevant to the

topic, policy, tradition, theory, method and design, (7) a research design capable of solving an

empirical problem by connecting operational definitions to empirical data and presenting and

interpreting the results. (The section on research tradition could easily be integrated into the

literature review, but in this article is kept separate in order to illustrate the overall logic of the

approach used.)

Among the alternatives to a generalist research project are scholarly contributions which

focus mainly on one the above elements, such as (1) a paper proposing research on an important

research question or research problem, (2) a literature review concerning an important

sociological topic, (3) a historical study of an important research tradition within sociology, (4) a

purely theoretical book, article or thesis, (5) a specialized discussion of the philosophy of social

science, (6) a purely empirical article which presents important original findings, (7) a purely

methodological contribution such as discussion of a new form of empirical research or data

analysis. Research which focuses on just one of these elements is defined as specialist in nature.

Method of the Case Study

Assuming that theory is much more likely to be included in a dissertation than in shorter

4

works, the use of dissertations for an inquiry into the manner in which theory is employed in

generalist dissertations can be considered a best case scenario sampling strategy. Ideally one

would examine a carefully selected set of dissertations, which would be studied by someone who

was not the author. However, as a convenience sample of sorts, this article presents a case study

of the use of social science theory in the introduction to the author’s own dissertation. As such,

this article is not applicable to the preparation of theses which are specialist in nature. Also, as a

case study, it cannot lead to generalizable conclusions. The article merely serves as one example

of the use of theory in a sociological thesis that is defined as generalist in nature, based upon the

author’s own dissertation (Author 2003). It incorporates lessons learned by the author and

conveys some of the wisdom conveyed by his advisors. The paper may be of value to students

preparing thesis or dissertation proposals and/or to teachers of sociological methods courses and

thesis proposal seminars.

Research Topic as an Exercise of the Sociological Imagination

I formulated the initial question for my dissertation in a Coney Island restaurant in

downtown Toledo, Ohio in August of 1999. Nursing a cup of coffee and contemplating the

rejection of a dissertation-related funding proposal for Toledo-based research on older adult

volunteer and voluntary association, I picked up a copy of the Toledo Blade and read a brief item

about the impact of property tax exemptions on public schools in Ohio's large cities. At around

this same time, I was reading Jonathan Kozol's book Savage Inequalities, which discussed how

unequal property tax revenues reinforce educational inequality (Kozol 1991). I jotted down on a

napkin the following question: “Is it possible that there is something about the growth of public

and nonprofit institutions - the very institutions often held responsible for addressing America’s

5

urban social problems - which may have exacerbated these problems?”

At the time, I was using space donated by the United Way of Greater Toledo to develop a

dissertation prospectus on organizational level factors affecting the relationship between older

adult voluntary association membership and volunteer participation in non-membership

organizations over the life course. A similar protagonist propelled that research: the role of

public and nonprofit organizations as independent variables, and their possible role in

externalizing costs onto the rest of society (Perrow 1991 2002a). I theorized that growth of

demand for volunteer time and involuntary and semi-voluntary community service by public and

by nonprofit corporations might have crowded out the ability of membership organizations to

recruit members, thus helping to explain the previously identified decline in face to face

voluntary association participation (Putnam 1995; Putnam 2000).

Suddenly all I had before me was one napkin with a brand new research question.

However, I remembered something which Bill Gamson said at an A.S.A. panel in Toronto in

1997, “Professors like it when you change the question and ask the one you wanted to answer.”

Furthermore, perhaps because of the emotional impact of reading Kozol’s book, I had a question

consistent with a classroom comment of Howard Kimeldorf: “You have to write a dissertation

which grips you in the heart.” Later, he clarified, “A dissertation comes from the heart, but is

guided by your head.” (Howard Kimelforf, classroom comment 1996, and personal

communication 2006, cited with permission.)

The lessons of this initial experience are several. First, there may be something about

removing oneself from the ivory tower (going to Toledo) which is associated with generating

research topics. In other words, identifying and cultivating a research site where you can exercise

6

your sociological imagination may come before identifying a research topic, not afterwards. This

experience also demonstrates the importance of not giving up when one’s original topic doesn’t

pan out. Finally, this experience demonstrates that one’s theoretical predilections can be applied

to more than one topic as well as at more than one level of analysis. For instance, I moved from

the individual and organizational levels in the field of gerontology, to the organizational and

institutional sector levels in the fields of economic and fiscal sociology, using the same

theoretical perspective.

Topic and originating, specifying and subsidiary questions

Possessed of an initial question, I consulted my notes from Kimeldorf’s memorandum on

four key questions which should be answered by a research proposal (Kimeldorf 1988). The first

question is: “What do you want to know?” In other words, what is the substantive problem? He

suggested distinguishing between the originating and specifying questions of a research topic.

An originating question addresses the larger issue or concern which first draws you to a problem.

A specifying question concerns the unique way in which a study seeks to address a problem that

is related to the originating question.

This is an especially useful distinction that Kimeldorf borrowed and adapted from his

mentor Maurice Zeitlin, who in turn borrowed and adapted this distinction from his mentors

(private communication, Howard Kimeldorf 2002, used with permission). With respect to

subsidiary questions, Charles Tilly suggested the value of beginning research with a

wide-ranging question (here termed the originating question), exploring theory relevant to such a

question (here most closely related to the adoption of a specifying question), and finally posing

an even more manageable subsidiary question which is answered with available data and is

7

relevant to the larger question (Tilly 1990).

What I had so far was an originating question, the “Is it possible...?” question. Next, I

asked myself: Had anyone else raised an issue related to the originating question? Yes, it turned

out (McEachern 1981; Mullen 1990; Quigley and Schmenner 1973; Swords 1981). But there had

been no recent sociological study of the social system of real property or the question of property

tax exemptions. Still, the question as posed was hardly answerable. I would need a second, or

specifying question. That question was: “Is it possible that the growth of the property tax exempt

real property of public, nonprofit and religious organizations has had significant unanticipated

negative consequences for urban schools, governments and communities?” Just as I had

wondered whether an unintended consequence of the growth of volunteering was a decline in

voluntary association membership, I was now wondering about the unanticipated consequences

of a particular form of purposive social action, the persistent granting of property tax exemptions

to public, nonprofit and religious property (Merton 1936).

In some cases, a specifying question can serve as the research question, and it serves well

to begin the research process. But in other cases one must further specify the specifying question

along the way, or develop a third, subsidiary question. My subsidiary question, which evolved

over the first year of the research, was the following: “Has the growth of property tax exempt

public, nonprofit and religious sector property been characterized by the displacement of

developed property from the tax rolls, or has it primarily involved the development of

undeveloped land or underdeveloped or deteriorating property? In short, did this growth involve

displacement or development?” In other words, starting with the identification of originating and

specifying questions, I added a third subsidiary question.

8

The first lesson from this is to utilize but adapt the approaches of your professors and

those found in the literature. For instance, I applied Kimeldorf’s guide to drafting a research

proposal, but added to it Tilly’s approach. I used a competing theses approach, identified the

research tradition from which I as writing, and clarified which conceptual and empirical

problems I was addressing (Platt 1966; Laudan 1977; Fligstein 1990; Romanelli 1989; Tucker,

Hurl and Ford 1994). But I did so on the basis of my own reading and interpretation of these

approaches. Similarly, no scholar would wish to follow the precise steps of this article in their

own research. The second lesson is that if data collection has already begun, it’s not too late to

narrow down your specifying question or adopt a subsidiary question. The third lesson is that the

same logical sequence of questions which is used in writing a research proposal can be used in

structuring the introductory section of the finished thesis.

Topic as Object and Subject of Research

In thinking about the topic of a research project, it is helpful to distinguish between the

object and subject of research. Ragin and Zaret distinguished between the object of research,

which are the observational units, and the subject of research, such as relationships among

variables (Ragin and Zaret 1983), the nature of a social mechanism (Swedberg 1993), or some

other subject. The object of my quantitative historical comparative sociological research was the

property valuation of real property in 17 urban cities and counties in Ohio since 1955.

The subject of the research was change over time in the relationship of sub-systems of the

social system of real property ownership. This social system is made up of three sub-systems of

real property ownership, each of which is differentiated by how these sub-systems experience

variation in a key aspect of property rights (Stinchcombe 1983; Zald 1999). That variation is

9

between taxable real property (residential, agricultural, commercial, or industrial), tax exempt

real property (public, nonprofit charitable, nonprofit educational or religious), or real property

that is in receipt of a corporate property tax abatement. Furthermore, the subject concerned

whether this change involved the operation of a particular social mechanism of theoretical

interest: the general process of externalization of costs (Perrow 1991 2002a), represented here by

the specific process referred to as displacement.

Displacement involves the externalization of costs from the exempt and abated

sub-systems to the taxpaying sub-system . The externalized costs are generated when the taxing

jurisdiction (i.e. the school system, city, or county) experiencing significant exemption-related

reductions in revenue (via the displacement of valuable developed property from the tax rolls) is

forced to propose an increased millage rate or to reduce public amenities. That in turn generates

a negative tax capitalization effect on the rate of growth of property values in that taxing

jurisdiction if other taxing jurisdictions aren’t experiencing the same phenomena (McEachern

1981; Tiebout 1956; Oates 1969). The lesson here is that distinguishing between the subject and

the object of research is an important step in clarifying the logic of how to engage in a

theoretically informed analysis of empirical data.

Social Policy and Sociological Relevance

The second question which Kimeldorf suggests should be answered is, “Why do you want

to know it?” Answering this question provides the intellectual rationale for answering the

questions earlier identified, and helps explain the importance of the questions, either theoretically

or practically. Accordingly, having identified what I wanted to know about (my topic), and what

general and specific questions and problems I wanted to address, I next explained the extent of

10

relevance of my topic to social policy and to sociology. With respect to policy relevance, Mayer

Zald has called for social research which is relevant to the key policy choices and social

problems being faced by contemporary institutions and how they are related to the study of elites

and of power (Zald 1999). Bent Flyvbjerg has argued that social science can take account of

social power by rejecting narrow scientism and by returning social science to its earlier status as

an activity which is both practical and intellectual (Flyvbjerg 2001).

I pointed out that in Ohio and across the country, there have been longstanding and still

unresolved policy debates about the propriety of property tax exemptions (Diamond 2002;

Gaudian 1926; Leland 1996; Grimm 1999; Brody 2002; Hall 2002). I summarized literature on

the role of land policy in public policy (Qadeer 1981; North 1993; Hall 2002). I cited concerns

that property tax exemptions may have a distorting effect on input prices and create incentives to

hoard land (Weisbrod 1988, cited by Bowman 2002). And I identified state policies designed to

compensate for the effects of exemptions (Brody and Carbone 2002; Bowman 2002; Davies

1949). However, I pointed out that my dissertation would not try to analyze such policy

questions or whether there were other possible positive or negative externalities generated by the

public, nonprofit and religious sectors. It wasn’t normative economics (which makes judgements

about policies) but positive economic sociology, which examines the consequences of a public

policy (Stigler 1966).

Next I discussed the dissertation’s sociological relevance. I pointed out that while very

little previous sociological research has studied property tax exemptions or the social system of

real property, David Harvey had discussed the concentration of public buildings in the inner city

(Harvey 1973), and Harvey Molotch had discussed real property in his theory of the urban

11

growth machine (Molotch 1976). I argued that research on property is an important aspect of the

larger discourse on space and place and on the natural and built environment (Tickamyer 2000;

Gans 2002; Swanstrom, Dreier, and Mollenkopf 2002; Harvey 1982).

Summing up, I pointed out that from a policy relevance standpoint my dissertation

responded to Zald’s call for policy-relevant social research (Zald 1999), and that from a

sociological relevance standpoint it responded to broader theoretical questions about the extent to

which we live in a society dominated by large organizations and large societal sectors which

externalize their costs onto the rest of society (Perrow 2002a). The lesson is that by including an

explicit section on policy relevance and/or sociological relevance within the introduction of a

thesis, the relationship between sociological theory, social research and social policy can be

further strengthened.

Research Tradition: What is a Research Tradition Anyway?

Also related to the question “why do you want to know it” is the question of what

sociological research tradition within which you want to situate your work. According to Larry

Laudan, progress in science takes place within the framework of distinct research traditions

(Laudan 1977). But my review of the literature showed that most previous work on my topic was

by economists, not sociologists. This presented a dilemma. Should I proceed with such a topic?

First, I reviewed the literature on the relationship of sociological theory to economic theory

(Swedberg 1993; Zald 1987; Baron and Hannan 1994; Pressman and Montecinos 1996; Coase

1994). I pointed out that Charles Perrow’s concept of externalization of costs contributes to an

emerging sociology of externalities, one with the potential to revive institutionalist debates about

whether externalities are an exceptional or a pervasive characteristic of modern economies

12

(Perrow 2000 2002b; Kapp 1950; Yonay 1998). Finally, I cited C. Wright Mills argument that

sociologists should not be constrained in the choice of theory by disciplinary boundaries (Mills

1959). I felt empowered to proceed. But what specific sociologically relevant research tradition

would such a study fall in?

Since I was studying large institutional sectors made up of organizations, I cited Mayer

Zald’s call for a sociology of vital institutions which addresses the relationship of state structure,

organizations and industries and which studies property rights in various forms (Zald 1999). I

discussed others who had called for research on the structure of institutional spheres and on the

link between organizations and social systems (Stern and Barley 1996; Hinings and Greenwood

2002). Just as I was studying the possible unintended consequences of property tax exemptions,

the institutionalist tradition often asked about the unanticipated consequences of purposive social

action (Merton 1936), looked at the dark side of organizations (Hinings and Greenwood 2002),

and didn’t assume that institutions always worked (Stinchcombe 1997). I noted that the

sub-systems of property-tax exempt public, nonprofit and religious real property represent what

Charles Tilly called a “systematic, durable social structure” (Tilly 1996: 592). I stressed that

property tax exemptions are an example of the institutional mechanisms (human inventions)

discussed by Polanyi, of the highly institutionalized processes discussed by Selznick, and of the

“institutionalization of economic action” discussed by Stinchcombe in his research on the

administration of property rights (Polanyi 1944; Selznick 1996; Stinchcombe 1983, p. 130).

I concluded that the institutionalist tradition, broadly considered, was the research

tradition most closely related to my topic, question, theory and method (Stinchcombe 1997;

Rutherford 1994; Scott 1995). The lesson of this section is that by identifying the research

13

tradition within which one is writing, and by systematically comparing your specific topic to that

tradition, it becomes possible to identify literature which while not directly related to your topic,

is at least indirectly related to your topic. That literature can help inform it theoretically and

often methodologically as well. Often, you may be working within a tradition without realizing

it!

Conceptual Framework: Conceptual Problem Addressed

Having identified a research tradition, it next made sense to identify the theories that

stemmed from or were compatible with that tradition, and to explain how they fit into the

conceptual framework of my dissertation. First I related Perrow’s conceptualization of the

externalization of costs to economic theories about external economies and diseconomies

(Marshall 1920; Mishan 1971), which are referred to more recently as positive and negative

externalities (Cornes and Sandler 1996; Staaf and Tannian 1974). I cited literature which linked

externalities to public goods, public property, and the nonprofit sector (Canterbery and Marvasti

1992; McKean 1975; Silvestre 1999; Qadeer 1981), as well as to land or property use in general

(Cao and Cory 1982).

I also pointed out that Perrow’s concept, externalization of cost, is the latest in a long

tradition of explicitly institutionalist interpretations of externalities (Kapp 1950; Papandreou

1994). The institutionalists view externalities as pervasive and as central, not only to capitalist

economies but to any society which has experienced the ascendance of large organizations

(Perrow 2002a). Next I further discussed the emerging sociology of externalities (Krohn 2000;

Callon 1998; Yonay 1998), in light of earlier work on the externalized costs of growth (Molotch

1976). I noted that Harvey explicitly pointed out the centrality of the analysis of externalities

14

generated by both public and private activity for judging the degree to which economic systems

should rely upon the market mechanism (Harvey 1973).

Within this emerging sociology of externalities, however, one particular theoretical

perspective was the primary one utilized in my dissertation: the society of organizations

perspective of Charles Perrow (Perrow 1991; Perrow 2002a). Perrow’s theory was applied not at

the level of the organization but at the level of institutionalized sub-systems of the social system

of real property ownership.

Having identified the general theoretical perspective, the theory of externalities, next I

provided conceptual definitions of key concepts from that perspective which would be used as

my part of my conceptual framework. I defined negative externalities as either a by-product

(output) of production of goods or services which impose costs on others who are not

compensated by the producer, or as costs of production (inputs) for which the producer has not

paid market rates, due to a mechanism that externalizes those costs onto persons who are not part

of the input transaction. In retrospect, I failed to define positive externalities in this section,

although there was discussion elsewhere of the concept. Lesson: no thesis is perfect, and

occasionally such a flaw may even fail to be noticed by your committee!

Nevertheless, I proceeded to explain the relationship of the general notion of positive

externalities to my conceptual definition of development, which was that it represents the

removal of undeveloped land or non-viable property from the tax rolls for use for exempt public,

nonprofit or religious purposes. Under the presumption that further development for exempt use

will take place, as is required by law in order to maintain an exemption, a positive externality

was seen as being generated by what was defined as development.

15

Next I linked my conceptual definition of negative externalities to my conceptual

definition of displacement, which was that it represents the removal of viable developed taxable

property from the tax rolls, thereby producing externalization of costs onto the taxable sectors, an

input-oriented negative externality. The operational definitions of displacement and

development and the logic of a displacement percentage statistic were discussed later in the

research design section.

One lesson here is that there is value in defining a series of conceptual definitions. One

set is fairly abstract. (In my case it was the definition of externalities.) That set is derived from

the theoretical literature but reworded in a way which makes sense to you. The next set is less

abstract and is more amenable to serving as the basis for later operational definitions of those

same concepts. (In my case these were the definitions of development and displacement.)

Just as the research question moved from an originating to a specifying to a subsidiary

question, my conceptual framework moved from a general conceptual definition to a more

specific conceptual definition. This was my way of answering question number three posed by

Kimeldorf: “What do you think the answer is?” (Kimeldorf 1988). I hypothesized that there were

two competing theses which helped explain a key aspect of the nature of the growth of exempt

property. One was that this growth was characterized by displacement and generated negative

externalities and the other was that it represented development and produced positive

externalities. These were not causal or explanatory hypotheses, in which independent variables

are used to explain variation in a dependent variable. They were theoretically informed

alternative characterizations of the growth and development over time of an important social

phenomenon, property exempt from taxation. They did not seek to answer why there was growth

16

in exempt property but rather to ascertain how it developed. As such, my dissertation was a

theoretically relevant exploratory and descriptive study. One lesson here is that theory is relevant

not only to explanatory studies but to descriptive studies as well. Implicit in such an approach

was some combination of ontological, epistemological, and methodological assumptions.

Ontological, Epistemological, and Methodological Assumptions

Michael Mann has pointed out that in some respects it matters little whether the

sociologist advocates positivism, interpretivism or realism or some other epistemological point

of view, since in reality the sociologist operates “as if they could apprehend and describe reality

through the process of operationalization, and as if they could rely on absolute standards of

scientific proof for their results to be evaluated” (Mann 1981: 548, emphasis in the original).

This is an important observation, one which supports the value of realist approaches (Bhaskar

1975 1979 1986 1989; Wright 1986; Steinmetz 1993; Shapiro and Wendt 1992).

However, it is important not to surrender to epistemological defeatism, whereby a scholar

fails to pay attention to key ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions. The

adoption of methodology as “window dressing” (Laudan 1977: 58), as well as a “let us keep the

untidy problems of philosophy out of social science” approach (Layder 1990, p. 5), both prevent

the examination of the epistemological assumptions of one's work and threaten the development

of a clear theoretical and empirical approach. Ideally, a research tradition should provide the

ontological, methodological and theoretical tools for solving empirical and conceptual problems

arising from within that tradition (Laudan 1977, p. 86). Arguably, it helps to have a useful

understanding of what those tools are and how to use them, even if the realities of both bounded

rationality and of the disciplinary boundaries between sociology and philosophy may preclude

17

knowing how to build them.

Accordingly, my dissertation did not fully discuss its epistemology, ontology and

methodology, although I did defend the inclusion of a qualitative historical chapter by explaining

that I considered it difficult to rely solely upon property valuation and census data, since both

literacy and numeracy are important to research (Emigh 2002). However, my prospectus

discussed my ontological and epistemological assumptions and included a methodological

appendix that consisted largely of a discussion of the application of realism and of the realist-

compatible approach of Larry Laudan to my research (Laudan 1977). In particular, the work of

Laudan shaped the manner in which the research questions guiding my dissertation were

consciously linked to a specific research tradition, and were posed in terms of specific conceptual

and empirical problems. Arguably, the proposal or prospectus is the best place for such

discussions, which can get in the way of presenting the thesis or dissertation itself.

In my prospectus, I explained that to view externalities as a social mechanism required an

assumption of some degree of methodological individualism, and that the theory of externalities

is not inconsistent with some degree of an assumption of intentionality. I explained that the

process of generating positive and negative externalities can conceivably be linked back to the

buy, rent, or build decisions made by exempt and non-exempt property owners needing

additional space. Buying developed property was consistent with displacement, renting

developed property keeps it on the tax rolls (and is neutral), and building on vacant or

underdeveloped land was seen as consistent with development.

Thus, epistemologically, I chose an intermediate version of the microfoundations thesis,

which requires such an approximate account of the underlying mechanisms operating at the

18

individual level (Little 1991, p. 196), one consistent with the empirically confirmed actions of

property owners who have made buy or build decisions related to the generation of displacement

or development, respectively.

Methodologically, I employed a preponderance of evidence method rooted in an index of

the percentage of displacement, explained in the research design section. However, because this

index was a rather rudimentary mathematical model consisting of the ratio of two ratios, in this

section I defended this simple analytical model by pointing out that sociologists shouldn’t let

statistical methods govern their research design or choice of sample size, as this can result in the

asking of less important questions (Sörensen 1999; Stern and Barley 1996). I also pointed out

that an overly mathematicized approach can lead to narrowness in the conceptualization of

institutions (Stinchcombe 1997).

Also, I pointed out that while exploratory research is often unable to test hypotheses

drawn from general theory(Tucker, Hurl and Ford 1994), it often can seek to generate a set of

logical hypotheses that are essentially empirical generalizations about the data at hand

(Romanelli 1989). My method for doing so employed two competing hypotheses that established

“a framework for examining results and for designing future investigations” (Romanelli 1989, p.

370).

As may be apparent, it was serendipitous that the theory of externalities had within it two

alternative mechanisms, negative and positive externalities. My two competing theses -

displacement and development - were drawn from that conceptual framework. There is growing

utilization of a competing theories approach to social research (Platt 1966; Laudan 1977;

Fligstein 1990; Romanelli 1989; Tucker, Hurl and Ford 1994).

19

These were my fundamental methodological, epistemological and ontological

assumptions. While not included in the final dissertation, they were explicit at the stage of the

prospectus, when, arguably, they were most relevant. The lesson of the inclusion of at least some

amount of discussion of the ontological, epistemological and methodological discussion in the

thesis proposal or dissertation prospectus is that is ensures that the writer is comfortable with the

way in which she or he is going about trying to solve the conceptual and/or empirical problems

being addressed.

Research Design: Empirical Problem Addressed

In my research design section, I addressed the fourth question asked by Kimeldorf, “How

do you intend to find out?” Kimelforf suggested reviewing how others have sought to answer

such questions, explaining the logic of how you are doing so and how you will know if your

answer is correct. In my research design section, I introduced how I had devised an appropriate

empirical test of my competing theses, with the full details deferred to a chapter presenting the

results. But I also did so with reference to the distinction between the solving of conceptual and

empirical problems (Laudan 1977). Platt's approach to problem solving and competing theses is

compatible with Laudan's distinction between a conceptual problem and an empirical problem

(Platt 1964; Laudan 1977; Tucker 1994). Conceptual problems can involve complex theoretical

issues which could best be solved by a strictly theoretical thesis, one defined here as specialist

rather than generalist. But in their simplest forms, conceptual problems can be solved by

providing clear conceptual definitions of abstract concepts and by devising somewhat less

abstract conceptual definitions that are amenable to being operationalized using empirical data.

Empirical problems, on the other hand, are often related to difficulties in operational

20

definitions of theoretically-imbued concepts. An empirical problem, in Laudan’s view, is not

merely a problem of measurement. Rather, an empirical problem is a problem related to how one

can empirically test theories, in this case competing theories. A test of my two competing theses

involved an important empirical problem: how to quantify and interpret the extent to which the

growth of property tax exemptions and abatements was consistent with the displacement thesis,

the development thesis, or a null hypothesis of the lack of a preponderance of evidence for either

thesis.

In my case, solving the empirical problem involved the use of a displacement-

development index and a displacement percentage statistic. The intensity of development of the

property on the tax rolls in any one year was indicated by the ratio of total property value to land

value. If, across all newly exempt parcels, the newly exempt property was just as intensively

developed as the property on the tax rolls, 100% displacement took place took place that year. If

all the newly exempt property parcels that year were undeveloped land, then 100% development

took place. The index and statistic were based on this logic and need not be further examined

here.

By solving this empirical problem, I sought to make a methodological contribution as to

how to analyze trends in the evolution of the social system of real property and its exempt sub-

systems, while at the same time making a theoretical contribution by testing competing

hypotheses derived from Perrow’s society of organizations perspective and the larger sociology

of positive and negative externalities.

The lesson drawn from the research design section is that there is value in seeking to

explicitly distinguish between a conceptual problem and an empirical problem, as part of a

21

broader problem-solving approach to social scientific progress (Laudan 1996; Platt 1966). By

translating the original set of research questions into a set of progressively less abstract but linked

conceptual definitions, a conceptual problem is addressed and a theoretical contribution is made.

By further restating the specifying or subsidiary research question as an empirical problem to be

solved, it becomes possible to make a contribution to research methods and empirical analysis,

as well as to make a further theoretical contribution by testing the competing theses.

Conclusion

The conclusions of this article do not touch upon the substantive conclusions reached in

my dissertation research, nor upon the implications for policy discussed in my concluding

chapter. Instead, I have provided an example of how social theory was utilized in the

introductory chapter to a sociological dissertation which I refer to as generalist. This article

illustrates the following steps to structuring the introductory section of a thesis or dissertation, all

of which can also contribute to the formulation of a good proposal or prospectus:

1. Present the originating question, specifying question and (where relevant) subsidiary question.

2. Show how the topic is relevant to both social policy, social problems, and/or the discipline of

sociology.

3. Portray how the thesis or dissertation is related to an explicitly identified research tradition.

4. In the conceptual framework section, discuss the overall theories utilized, contribute to the

solving of conceptual problems in social science by presenting in your own words the conceptual

definitions of the key concepts to be used, and identify those conceptual definitions which are

amenable to operationalization given the available data.

5. Base your research design and the character of the data to be employed on some previously

22

considered if not explicitly discussed ontological, epistemological and methodological

foundation with which you are comfortable and which is compatible with the research tradition

you have identified.

6. Describe the overall nature of the empirical data to be employed, reserving details for the

results section of the thesis or dissertation.

7. In the research design section, explain the logic of how you solved an empirical problem by

devising operational definitions of your relevant concepts, using either a traditional

hypothesis/null hypothesis approach or a competing theses perspective, and employing an

analytic strategy for generating and interpreting your results.

By following these steps, which by and large reflect what was anticipated in my

prospectus, I found that the preparation of the remainder of the dissertation was facilitated.

Although these steps filled forty pages in my dissertation, each step might take only a few

paragraphs in the introduction to a shorter research paper or in a thesis or dissertation proposal.

Ultimately, a thesis or dissertation is the product of the sociological imagination (Mills

1959). Our sociological imaginations lead to myriad questions, so many that it is often helpful to

boil them down into originating, specifying and subsidiary questions. Our topics don’t always

have to be both social policy relevant and sociologically relevant, although presumably they must

be one or the other if we write a dissertation in sociology. Furthermore, we work from a wide

variety of research traditions, although I have argued that it is helpful to identify the tradition

which is closest to our topic.

Within those traditions, we use a wide variety of conceptual frameworks, reaching

outside sociology when necessary in order to use other theoretical perspectives which can enrich

23

our sociological traditions. We use those frameworks and perspectives to solve minor conceptual

problems related to the need to further define very abstract concepts (such as negative and

positive externalities). But we also use those frameworks to create new concepts (such as

displacement and development) which are less abstract but which can be linked to operational

definitions. We grapple with a bewildering variety of approaches to ontology, epistemology and

methodology, in order to find an approach which brings order to our often initially inchoate

efforts to make sense of that part of social life which we are seeking to understand.

Most importantly, we each seek to research social life in a way which makes sense first

and foremost to ourselves. We hope that what we do will make sense to our advisor and

committee. Through trial and error, we use some combination of tried and true methods and the

invention of a new wrinkle on qualitative or quantitative data collection and analysis to develop a

research design which can solve a perplexing but hopefully important empirical problem as part

of what is termed here a generalist research model. Or, we make an equally important

contribution by focusing more in depth on a particular historical or policy or theoretical or

methodological or descriptive topic. In this article, I have reflected upon my own dissertation in

order to seek to make a contribution to learning and teaching in sociology about the preparation

of theses which are generalist in nature.

24

REFERENCES

Authorlastname, Authorfirstname. 2003. Dissertation title. Place: University.

Baron, James N. and Michael T. Hannan. 1994. "The Impact of Economics on Contemporary

Sociology." Journal of Economic Literature 23:1111-46.

Becker, Howard S. 1986. Writing for Social Scientists: How to Start and Finish Your Thesis,

Book or Article. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Becker, Howard S. 1998. Tricks of the Trade: How to Think About Your Research While You're

Doing It. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Berg, Bruce L. 1998. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. 3rd ed. Boston:

Allyn and Bacon.

Bhaskar, Roy. 1979. The Possibility of Naturalism. New York: Humanities Press.

———. 1975. A Realist Theory of Science. Brighton: Harvester.

———. 1989. Reclaiming Reality: A Critical Introduction to Contemporary Philosophy. New

York: Verso.

———. 1986. Scientific Realism and Human Emancipation. London: Verso.

Black, Thomas. 1993. Evaluating Social Science Research: An Introduction. Newbury Park,

CA: Sage Publications.

Bowman, Woods. 2002. "Impact Fees: An Alternative to PILOTs." Property Tax Exemption for

Charities: The War Within the States, Editor E. Brody. Washington DC: The Urban

Institute Press.

Brody, Evelyn, Editor. 2002. Property Tax Exemption for Charities: The War Within the States.

Washington DC: The Urban Institute Press.

25

Callon, Michel. 1998. "An Essay on Framing and Overflowing: Economic Externalities

Revisited by Sociology." The Laws of the Markets, Editor M. Callon. Malden, MA:

Blackwell Publishers/Sociological Review.

Canterbery, E. R. and A. Marvasti. 1992. "The Coase Theorem As a Negative Externality."

Journal of Economic Issues 26:1179-89.

Cao, T. V. and D. C. Cory. 1982. "Mixed Land Uses, Land-Use Externalities, and Residential

Property-Values - a Re-Evaluation." Annals of Regional Science 16:1-24.

Coase, Ronald H. 1994. Essays on Economics and Economists. Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press.

Cornes, Richard and Todd Sandler. 1996. The Theory of Externalities, Public Goods, and Club

Goods. 2d ed. New York: Cambridge.

Davies, John. 1949. "A Study of Real Property Tax Exemptions With Special Reference to

Their Fiscal Impact in Ohio (M.S. Thesis, Discipline Unknown)." Columbus, OH: Ohio

State University.

Diamond, Stephen. 2002. "Efficiency and Benevolence: Philanthropic Tax Exemptions in 19th-

Century America." Property Tax Exemption for Charities: The War Within the States,

Editor E. Brody. Washington DC: The Urban Institute Press.

Emigh, Rebecca J. 2002. "Numeracy or Enumeration? The Uses of Numbers by States and

Societies." Social Science History 26:653-98.

Fligstein, Neil. 1990. The Transformation of Corporate Control. Cambridge: Harvard.

Flyvbjerg, Bent. 2001. Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How It

Can Succeed Again. New York: Cambridge.

26

Gans, Herbert J. 2002. " The Sociology of Space: A Use-Centered View." City and Community:

A Journal of the Community and Urban Sociology Section of the American Sociological

Association 1:329-39.

Gaudian, Martin F. 1926. The Exemptions of Real Property From the Property Tax of Ohio.

(M.A. Thesis, Economics). Ohio State University, Columbus.

Giarrusso, Roseann, Judith Richlin-Klonsky, William G. Roy, and Ellen Strenski. 1994. A

Guide to Writing Sociology Papers. 3rd ed. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Grimm, Robert T., Jr. 1999. "Reforming Property Tax Exemption Policy in the Nonprofit

Sector: Commercialism, Collective Goods, and the Donative Theory." Nonprofit

Management and Leadership 9:241-59.

Hall, Peter D. 2002. "Is Tax Exemption Intrinsic or Contingent? The Tax Treatment of

Voluntary Associations, Nonprofit Organizations, and Religious Bodies in New Haven,

Connecticut, 1750-2000." Property Tax Exemption for Charities: The War Within the

States, Editor E. Brody. Washington DC: The Urban Institute Press.

Harvey, David. 1982. "Labour, Capital, and Class Struggle Around the Built Environment in

Advanced Capitalist Societies." Classes, Power and Conflict: Classical and

Contemporary Debates, Editors A. Giddens and D. Held. Berkeley: University of

California.

———. 1973. Social Justice and the City. Baltimore: John Hopkins.

Hinings, Bob and Royston Greenwood. 2002. "Disconnects and Consequences in Organization

Theory." Administrative Science Quarterly 47:411-21.

Kapp, K. W. 1950. The Social Costs of Private Enterprise. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.

27

Katzer, Jeffrey, Kenneth H. Cook, and Wayne W. Crouch. 1998. Evaluating Information a

Guide for Users of Social Science Research. 4th ed. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Kimeldorf, Howard. 1988. “Drafting a research proposal.” (Memorandum to graduate students,

University of Michigan Department of Sociology). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Kozol, Jonathan. 1991. Savage Inequalities: Children in America's Schools. New York: Harper

Collins.

Krohn, Roger. 2000. "Toward a New Sociology of Economics.".

Laudan, Larry. 1996. "A Problem-Solving Approach to Scientific Progress." Beyond Positivism

and Relativism: Theory, Method, and Evidence, Larry Laudan. Boulder: Westview Press.

———. 1977. Progress and Its Problems: Toward a Theory of Scientific Growth. Berkeley:

University of California Press.

Layder, Derek. 1990. The Realist Image in Social Science. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Leland, Pamela J. 1996. "Exploring Challenges to Nonprofit Status: Issues of Definition and

Access in Community-Based Research." American Behavioral Scientist 39:587-601.

Little, Daniel. 1991. Varieties of Social Explanation: An Introduction to the Philosophy of

Social Science. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Mann, Michael. 1981. "Socio-Logic." Sociology 15:544-50.

Marshall, Alfred. 1920. Principles of Economics. 8th ed. London: Macmillan.

Martin, Michael and Lee C. McIntyre, Editors. 1994. Readings in the Philosophy of Social

Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

McEachern, William A. 1981. "Tax-Exempt Property, Tax Capitalization, and the Cumulative-

Urban-Decay Hypothesis." National Tax Journal 34:185-92.

28

McKean, Robert N. and Jacqueline M. Browning. 1975. "Externalities From Government and

Non-Profit Sectors." Canadian Journal of Economics - Revue Canadienne D Economique

8:574-90.

Merton, Robert K. 1936. "The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action."

American Sociological Review 1:894-904.

Mills, C. Wright. 1959. The sociological imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.

Mishan, Edward J. 1971. "The Postwar Literature on Externalities: An Interpretive Essay."

Journal of Economic Literature 9:1-28.

Molotch, Harvey. 1976. " The City As a Growth Machine: Towards a Political Economy of

Place." American Journal of Sociology 82:309-32.

Mullen, John K. 1990. "Property Tax Exemptions and Local Fiscal Stress." National Tax

Journal 43:467-79.

North, Douglas C. 1993. "Institutional Change: A Framework for Analysis." Institutional

Change: Theory and Empirical Findings, Editor S. Sjöstrand. Armonk, New York: M.

E. Sharpe.

Oates, Wallace E. 1969. "The Effects of Property Taxes and Local Public Spending on Property

Values: An Empirical Study of Tax Capitalization and the Tiebout Hypothesis." Journal

of Political Economy 77:957-71.

Papandreou, Andreas A. 1994. Externality and Institutions. New York: Oxford.

Perrow, Charles. 1991. "A Society of Organizations." Theory and Society 20:725-62.

———. 2000. " An Organizational Analysis of Organizational Theory." Contemporary

Sociology 29:469-674.

29

———. 2002a. Organizing America: Wealth, Power and the Origins of Corporate Capitalism.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

———. 2002b. The Rise of Nonprofits and the Decline of Civil Society in the U.S..

Unpublished Paper Provided With Permission by the Author to Cite. New Haven:

Department of Sociology, Yale University.

Platt, John R. 1966. "Diversity." Science 154:1132-39.

———. 1964. "Strong Inference." Science 146:347-53.

Polanyi, Karl. 1944. The Great Transformation. Boston: Beacon.

Pressman, Steven and Verónica Montecinos. 1996. "Economics and Sociology: A Review

Essay." Journal of Economic Issues 30:877-85.

Putnam, Robert. 1995. "Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital." Journal of

Democracy 6:65-78.

Putnam, Robert. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community.

New York: Simon and Shuster.

Qadeer, M. A. 1981. "The Nature of Urban Land." American Journal of Economics and

Sociology 40:165-82.

Quigley, J. M. and R. W. Schmenner. 1975. "Property Tax Exemption and Public Policy."

Public Policy 23:259-67.

Ragin, Charles C. 1994. Constructing Social Research: The Unity and Diversity of Method.

Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.

Ragin, Charles and David Zaret. 1983. "Theory and Method in Comparative Research: Two

Strategies." Social Forces 61:731-53.

30

Romanelli, Elaine. 1989. "Environments and Strategies of Organization Start-Up: Effects on

Early Survival." Administrative Science Quarterly 34:369-87.

Rudestam, Kjell and Rae R. Newton. 1992. Surviving Your Dissertation: A Comprehensive

Guide to Content and Process. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Rutherford, Malcolm. 1994. Institutions in Economics: The Old and the New Institutionalism.

Cambridge: Cambridge.

Scott, W. R. 1995. Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Selznick, Philip. 1996. "Institutionalism "Old" and "New"." Administrative Science Quarterly

41:270-278.

Shapiro, Ian and Alexander Wendt. 1992. "The Difference That Realism Makes: Social Science

and the Politics of Consent." Politics and Society 20:197-223.

Silvestre, Joaquim. 1999. "External Diseconomies in the Commons." Pp. 353-74 in Trade,

Theory and Econometrics: Essays in Honor of John S. Chipman. Studies in the Modern

World Economy., Editors J. Melvin, J. Moore, and R. Riezman. London and New York:

Routledge.

Staaf, Robert J. and Francis X. Tannian. 1974. Externalities: Theoretical Dimensions of

Political Economy. New York: Dunellen.

Steinmetz, George. 1993. Regulating the Social: the Welfare State and Local Politics in

Imperial GermaNew York. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Stern, Paul C. and Linda Kalof. 1996. Evaluating Social Science Research. 2d ed. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Stern, Robert N. and Stephen R. Barley. 1996. "Organizations and Social Systems:

31

Organization Theory's Neglected Mandate." Administrative Science Quarterly 41:146-62.

Stigler, George J. 1966. The Theory of Price. 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan.

Stinchcombe, Arthur L. 1983. Economic Sociology. New York: Academic Press.

———. 1997. "On the Virtues of the Old Institutionalism." Annual Review of Sociology 23:1-

18.

Swanstrom, Todd, Peter Dreier, and John Mollenkopf. 2002. "Economic Inequality and Public

Policy: The Power of Place." City and Community: A Journal of the Community and

Urban Sociology Section of the American Sociological Association 1:349-72.

Swedberg, Richard. 1993. "On the Relationship Between Economic Theory and Economic

Sociology in the Work of Joseph Schumpeter." Explorations in Economic Sociology,

Editor R. Swedberg. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Swords, Peter. 1981. Charitable Real Property Tax Exemptions in New York State: Menace or

Measure of Social Progress. New York: Association of the Bar of the City of New York,

Distributed by Columbia University Press.

Sörenson, Aage B. 1998. "Theoretical Mechanisms and the Empirical Study of Social

Processes." Social Mechanisms: An Analytical Approach to Social Theory, Editors P.

Hedstrom and R. Swedberg. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tickamyer, Ann R. 2000. "Space Matters: Spatial Inequality in Future Sociology."

Contemporary Sociology 29:805-13.

Tiebout, Charles M. 1956. "A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures." Journal of Political

Economy 64:416-24.

Tilly, Charles, R. 1990. Coercion, Capital and European States AD 990-1990. Cambridge,

32

MA: B. Blackwell.

Tilly, Charles. 1996. "Invisible Elbow." Sociological Forum 11:589-601.

Tripodi, Tony, Phillip Fellin, and Henry J. Meyer. 1969. The Assessment of Social Research:

Guidelines for the Use of Research in Social Work and Social Science. Itasca, IL: F. E.

Peacock Publishers Inc.

Tucker, David J. 1994. " Progress and Problems in Population Ecology." Evolutionary

Dynamics of Organizations, Editors J. Baum and J. Singh. New York: Oxford.

Tucker, David J., Lorna F. Hurl, and Harry Ford. 1994. "Applying Organizational Ecology to

the Family: The Case of Who Persists in Providing Foster Care." Journal of Marriage

and the Family 56:1005-118.

Turabian, Kate L. A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses and Dissertations. 6th ed.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Weber, Max. 1994. "Objectivity in Social Science and Social Policy." Readings in the

Philosophy of Social Science, Editors M. Martin and L. McIntyre. Cambridge: MIT

Press.

Weisbrod, Burton A. 1988. The Nonprofit Economy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Wright, Erik O. 1986. Classes. London: New Left Books.

Yonay, Yuval P. 1998. The Struggle Over the Soul of Economics: Institutionalist and

Neoclassical Economists in America Between the Wars. Princeton, NJ: Princeton.

Zald, Mayer. 1999. "Towards a Sociology of Vital Institutions." Center for Research on Social

Organization. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Department of Sociology.

Zald, Mayer N. 1987. "Review Essay: the New Institutional Economics." American Journal of

33

Sociology 93:701-8.