International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 10, 2019 17
Consensual standards of assessment enable
conflict resolution among competing theoretical
formulations on the basis of reason and evidence
as opposed to noncognitive social, economic,
ideological, or political factors. Furthermore,
disciplines with universally accepted paradigms
have firmly established foundations. Therefore,
debates between theories do not include disputes
over the foundations of the discipline.
Disciplines, however, without universally
accepted paradigms lack consensual standards of
assessment. Consequently, political/ideological
struggles and foundation questions dominate
conflicts between theories, conflicts remain
unresolved, and little or no theoretical growth
occurs (Cole, 2001b, pp. 55–56 see Berger et
al., 2005, p. 148 Kuhn, 2012, p. 94).
Highly developed paradigms perform the
functions necessary for theoretical growth. Thus,
according to the Kuhn-Cole argument,
universally accepted paradigms are a necessary
condition for a discipline’s theoretical progress.
Sociology, however, lacks a core of universally
accepted paradigms and therefore lacks
significant progress.
In response to Cole’s argument, sociologists
Joseph Berger, David Willer, and Morris
Zelditch (2005) argued that, in the absence of a
universally accepted core of knowledge,
theoretical research programs engender
theoretical growth. These programs, they assert,
define a set of problems as doable, and
researchers within programs share common
cognitive standards of assessing solutions to
problems. Consequently, theoretical growth
occurs within them (Berger et al., 2005).
Overview of Berger-Willer-Zelditch
Response
Berger et al. (2005) acknowledged that
sociology lacks universally accepted paradigms,
but they challenged the implicit assumption of
the Kuhn-Cole argument that universally
accepted paradigms are necessary for theoretical
progress. They argued that theoretical research
programs, which already exist within sociology,
perform similar functions for theoretical
progress as highly developed paradigms.
Berger et al. (2005, pp. 131–132) distinguished
three levels of theoretical activity.9 At the
elementary level is the unit theory, consisting of
a set of interrelated concepts and principles. Unit
theories employ empirical models to explain
specific concrete phenomena. At the overarching
level is the orienting strategy, a metatheoretical
structure that consists of broad aims, ontological
and epistemological presuppositions, and
substantive and methodological directives.
Orienting strategies guide the construction of
unit theories. At the intermediate level is the
theoretical research program, which combines
elements of both unit theories and orienting
strategies. Theoretical research programs
combine “a set of substantive and
methodological working strategies, a network of
interrelated unit theories embodying these
strategies, and a set of theory-based empirical
models that interpret these theories” (Berger et
al., 2005, p. 132).
A theoretical research program provides a
community of scientists with the conceptual and
methodological resources that normal science
requires (Berger et al., 2005, pp. 131–132). The
concepts and principles available in the program
enable researchers to formulate solutions to
problems. The information-gathering and
information-processing techniques of the
program enable researchers to determine the
empirical adequacy of the solutions.
Furthermore, a community of scientists
committed to a program share common
cognitive standards for assessing solutions to
theoretical problems. Therefore, researchers use
reason and evidence, as opposed to politics and
ideology, to resolve conflicts between
competing theoretical formulations. Theoretical
research programs grow because researchers
within a program are able to determine which
problems are doable given the conceptual and
methodological resources of the program and
researchers resolve conflicts between competing
theoretical formulations on rational grounds
(given that the standards of assessment are
9 Berger et al.’s analytic scheme comprises the three major types
of theoretical activity given in Wagner and Berger (1985), and
refined in Berger and Zelditch (1993 1997).
Consensual standards of assessment enable
conflict resolution among competing theoretical
formulations on the basis of reason and evidence
as opposed to noncognitive social, economic,
ideological, or political factors. Furthermore,
disciplines with universally accepted paradigms
have firmly established foundations. Therefore,
debates between theories do not include disputes
over the foundations of the discipline.
Disciplines, however, without universally
accepted paradigms lack consensual standards of
assessment. Consequently, political/ideological
struggles and foundation questions dominate
conflicts between theories, conflicts remain
unresolved, and little or no theoretical growth
occurs (Cole, 2001b, pp. 55–56 see Berger et
al., 2005, p. 148 Kuhn, 2012, p. 94).
Highly developed paradigms perform the
functions necessary for theoretical growth. Thus,
according to the Kuhn-Cole argument,
universally accepted paradigms are a necessary
condition for a discipline’s theoretical progress.
Sociology, however, lacks a core of universally
accepted paradigms and therefore lacks
significant progress.
In response to Cole’s argument, sociologists
Joseph Berger, David Willer, and Morris
Zelditch (2005) argued that, in the absence of a
universally accepted core of knowledge,
theoretical research programs engender
theoretical growth. These programs, they assert,
define a set of problems as doable, and
researchers within programs share common
cognitive standards of assessing solutions to
problems. Consequently, theoretical growth
occurs within them (Berger et al., 2005).
Overview of Berger-Willer-Zelditch
Response
Berger et al. (2005) acknowledged that
sociology lacks universally accepted paradigms,
but they challenged the implicit assumption of
the Kuhn-Cole argument that universally
accepted paradigms are necessary for theoretical
progress. They argued that theoretical research
programs, which already exist within sociology,
perform similar functions for theoretical
progress as highly developed paradigms.
Berger et al. (2005, pp. 131–132) distinguished
three levels of theoretical activity.9 At the
elementary level is the unit theory, consisting of
a set of interrelated concepts and principles. Unit
theories employ empirical models to explain
specific concrete phenomena. At the overarching
level is the orienting strategy, a metatheoretical
structure that consists of broad aims, ontological
and epistemological presuppositions, and
substantive and methodological directives.
Orienting strategies guide the construction of
unit theories. At the intermediate level is the
theoretical research program, which combines
elements of both unit theories and orienting
strategies. Theoretical research programs
combine “a set of substantive and
methodological working strategies, a network of
interrelated unit theories embodying these
strategies, and a set of theory-based empirical
models that interpret these theories” (Berger et
al., 2005, p. 132).
A theoretical research program provides a
community of scientists with the conceptual and
methodological resources that normal science
requires (Berger et al., 2005, pp. 131–132). The
concepts and principles available in the program
enable researchers to formulate solutions to
problems. The information-gathering and
information-processing techniques of the
program enable researchers to determine the
empirical adequacy of the solutions.
Furthermore, a community of scientists
committed to a program share common
cognitive standards for assessing solutions to
theoretical problems. Therefore, researchers use
reason and evidence, as opposed to politics and
ideology, to resolve conflicts between
competing theoretical formulations. Theoretical
research programs grow because researchers
within a program are able to determine which
problems are doable given the conceptual and
methodological resources of the program and
researchers resolve conflicts between competing
theoretical formulations on rational grounds
(given that the standards of assessment are
9 Berger et al.’s analytic scheme comprises the three major types
of theoretical activity given in Wagner and Berger (1985), and
refined in Berger and Zelditch (1993 1997).
