Pro-President Of Ismai For Post-Graduate Studies

DUBIN´S MODEL OF THEORY BUILDING





ABSTRACT


In this paper we shall attempt to explicate and criticize Dubin’s model of theory building by assessing his conception of THEORY, UNITS OF A THEORY, LAWS OF INTERACTION, BOUNDARIES OF THE MODEL, PROPOSITIONS, ENPIRICAL INDICATORS, and HYPOTHESIS. For didactical reasons we shall be following Dubin’s argument the way it is organizedand structured in his book: Theory Building


THEORY
Dubin uses the terms “theory”, “theoretical, “model”, and “system” interchangeably. The importance of all these terms, he suggests, lies in their ability to ‘generate predictions about the nature of man’s world” (Dubin 1969:9). Prediction is equated with foretelling or anticipating the state of a system as a whole. The way in whichpredictions are tested for their validity rests on empirical reality. Thus, a theory is an empirically-revelant abstraction of the observable world. Understanding theory implies “knowledge about the interaction of units in a system” (,Dubin 1969::10). However, Dubin himself recognizes that “the level of understanding is broad but relatively imprecise” (Dubin 1969:14). He does not clarify the meaning of“relatively imprecise”. Moreover, must we assume that understanding is really distinct from prediction? Imagine someone saying: “I can accurately predict the outcome of any war but I really do not understand anything about wars.”

UNITS OF THEORY

Because the term “concept” has several meanings, Dubin decided “to employ the more neutral term unit to designate the things out of whichtheories are built” (Dubin 1969:28). but “unit” itself becomes a confusing term when Dubin says “we build our theories about the properties of things rather than about the things themselves” (Dubin 1969:30). This is confusing because units of theory cannot designate things and properties of things at the same time.
Again confusing the reader, Dubin describes the units of a
theory as being eitherattributes or variables. Attributes are properties “of a thing distinguished by the quality of being present “a variable is a property of a thing that may be present in degree” (Dubin 1969:34—35). Quoting Dubin: “What distinguishes the two is their function in a theory and its testing, not their relative susceptibility to satisfying the criteria of measurement” (Dubin 1969:41). According to him,both attributes and properties have their respective places in theory construction; unfortunately, he never explains what and which are those places. Why is it confusing and unclear? One possibility is that “attribute” is just Dubin’s name for any qualitative characteristic of a thing or event, whereas “variable” denotes quantitative characteristics. But, if so, why did he not describe them thatway? Therefore, the distinction is unclear because it does not speak to such a question. Then one should confront this question: can the distinction be applied?
When Dubin talks about nominal and real units he asserts that the distinction “rests solely upon the probability of finding an empirical indicator for the unit”(Dubin 1969:43). This is not clear if only because Dubin did not stipulate asufficient probability of “finding an empirical indicator.”
“Primitive units” are for Dubin “indefined starting points” (Dubin 1969:44); “sophisticated units” are defined units. He is primarily concerned with the latter.

(Sophisticated) Units of a Theory 2
Enumerative Unit

“An enumerative unit is a term that denotes a property characteristic of a thing in all its conditions”(Dubin 1969:52)1.
Dubin’s assumption here is that a “thing always has that property” (Dubin 1969: 52j and therefore, “the enumerative unit is universal” (Dubin 1969:53). Nevertheless, Dubin seems unsure about how to identify some units, such as sex2 and age, which in this context he identifies as enumerative but later on as absolute indicators (Dubin 1969:198). It is not clear when an indicator...