David Takeuchi’s Survey at the University of Hawaii
Summary
The case study describes a survey performed by David Takeuchi and his team in 1974 which aimed at explaining the reasons for different treatment of marijuana by the students of the University of Hawaii (Babbie, 2016). Various explanations for this issue were offered. Some said that marijuana smokers had problems with the studies; others considered that the students were looking for original values (Babbie, 2016). However, data analysis performed by Takeuchi showed that both opinions were wrong.
Takeuchi discovered that men were more likely to smoke than women; non-Asians were more likely to smoke than Asians; and students living in apartments were more inclined to smoke than those who stayed at home (Babbie, 2016).
The researchers investigated that each of the variables impacted the probability of the student’s being a marijuana smoker. For instance, eighty percent of non-Asian males staying in apartments smoked; while so did only ten percent of Asian females who stayed at home (Babbie, 2016). In this case, the analysis led to an interesting result. Rather than investigating why some students smoked, the researchers investigated why others did not. Having supposed that every student had an impulse to try marijuana, the scholars assumed that the students had various social restraints. These restrictions averted the students from being influenced by those impulses (Babbie, 2016).
As a result of the social constraint theory, Takeuchi made three reasons. According to the first one, women had more restrictions on smoking than men. According to the second, students staying at home had more restraints than those living in rented apartments. The third reasoning was concerned with the subculture: Asian students had more restrictions than non-Asian ones (Babbie, 2016.
In this case, the researchers managed to find a crucial pattern of drug use earlier than they found an explanation for that pattern. Therefore, instead of analyzing the reasons why some students were smokers, the scholars examined the reasons why others weren’t (Babbie, 2016).
Definition of Inductive Theory
The inductive theory presupposes the analysis from the investigation of knowledge to the general development of theory: “data to theory” (Cargan, 2007, p. 31). For instance, the theoretical principles of some issues are only possible after the compilation of the statistical evidence. The collected data is called “grounded theory” (Cargan, 2007, p. 31). Several common mistakes are possible when applying inductive logic: oversimplification, overgeneralization, and tautological reasoning (Cargan, 2007).
Specific Aspects of the Study that Make It Inductive
The inductiveness of the study indicated that the theory appeared as a result of data analysis. At the beginning of the research, the researchers did not think of such a theory (Babbie, 2016).
Guillermina Jasso’s Theory of Distributive Justice
Summary
The case study analyzes Guillermina Jasso’s theory of distributive justice. According to Jasso, the theory presents a mathematical explanation of the process in which people examine themselves in contrast with others based on their values (Babbie, 2016). Thus, the participants are evaluating whether they are being treated justly or unjustly.
To support the mathematical inclination of her theory, Jasso marks her key variable – the justice evaluation – as J. One of the assumptions of Jasso’s theory defines the basic axiom of comparison delineating the theory’s substantive issue of departure (Babbie, 2016). Jasso remarks that the people’s sense of receiving fair treatment results from their comparison of themselves to the others. Jasso suggests that people’s impression of distributive justice is the function of comparison holdings (C) and actual holding (A). Hence, the sense of justice is the comparison of one’s possessions to the possessions of other people. These two components are used as variables in Jasso’s study (Babbie, 2016).
The further stage where Jasso proposes a rule of measurement is necessary as some of the investigated goods are concrete and others are abstract (Babbie, 2016). The concrete goods are analyzed conventionally and the abstract ones – relatively. Therefore, the theory shall present a formula for carrying out that measurement (Babbie, 2016).
Jasso’s theorizing allows her to conclude that a person will likely steal from his/her group member than from a stranger. Here, Jasso points out that A will increase in both cases (stealing from a group member or an outsider), while C will be different.
Definition of Deductive Theory
The deductive theory is based on the “theory to data” approach (Cargan, 2007, p. 31). The theory involves reasoning from collective theoretical explanations established separately to the collected data. As a rule, deductive theories are evolved via literature research. They often begin with the reconsideration of other analyses that have examined the analogous issues. Such an approach allows combining previous achievements in the field with the current study’s outcomes. Thus, the major function of deductive theory is to present a possibility of making predictions based on past observations (Cargan, 2007).
Specific Aspects of the Study that Make It Deductive
Jasso’s derivations prove that the theory is deductive. She has tested the predictions to see whether her reasonable assumptions happen in practice.
References
Babbie, E. (2016). The basics of social research (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage.
Cargan, L. (2007). Doing social research. Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield.