Theory, Brand Loyalty, and Research in Social Science

Defining Theory in Social Science

One of the most difficult paradigms in research is defining what exactly constitutes the idea of "theory." There are many different authors with many different views on this subject.

Harlow (2009) articulates that the problem associated with defining "theory" is that there is no fixed, universal meaning for this concept. One guide toward identifying the components that constitute a theory could be the specific research direction at issue. In the natural sciences, for example, "theory" could refer to a law or system of laws. In a social sciences discipline, "theory" might suggest a construct or set of constructs used to order and understand the phenomena under study.

While it is difficult to explain or define the concept of theory, Harlow also points toward the importance of understanding "theory" in terms of research, since it forms the central concept around which the research is conducted. Hence, understanding what is meant by theory within a specific research paradigm is highly important in order to conduct research successfully. In social science, and specifically in a comparative study between two countries, theory might therefore constitute a construct for predicting the purchasing behavior of individuals or groups.

Stam (2010) identifies three views for formulating a concept around the idea of theory in psychology. These include the positions that theories can be reducible to observables, used as instruments to do things in the world, or understood as statements about things that exist. As such, reductionism, instrumentalism, and realism form some of the most prominent theoretical premises for explaining the idea of "theory" in research, particularly in psychological research.

Stam (2010) takes this further by adding that psychological explanations of phenomena could also include the concept of cause. When considering purchasing behavior, for example, culture is likely to play a relatively important role. American culture may therefore play a role in differentiating the purchasing behavior of youth in that country from that among youth in Kenya.

According to Stam (2010), theoretical approaches in the study of social psychology focus on individuals and cognition. Therefore, a person's thoughts, feelings, and behavior are influenced by the "real and imagined" presence of others around them. This framework can be applied to brand loyalty among groups of people in the two countries being compared — Kenya and the United States.

Perhaps the clearest view of theory is offered by Stam (2010), who states that the phenomenon is a systematic representation of a genuine problem. This representation is usually offered in mathematical terms in the natural sciences, or in logical or linguistic terms in the life and social sciences. While it is relatively straightforward to identify the nature of theory in the natural sciences, it is not as simple for the social sciences, where the relationship between theory and observation is often a fluid one.

According to Stam (2010), functionalism came into use in the early twentieth century in the social sciences to account for those processes that could not precisely be explained in terms of their ontological status. For social science, then, the problem remains one of how to explain and investigate phenomena in such a way that theory relates to fact rather than to ungrounded hunches or feelings.

Stam (2010) notes that the social sciences include a reflexive element, which means that the investigator must be part of the community being investigated in order to truly understand the human activities being accounted for in the study. The investigator for the comparative study referenced here, for example, is part of both the American community — having lived in that country for a number of years — as well as the Kenyan community by birth and upbringing. Hence, the investigator is uniquely positioned to investigate effectively the youth of both countries regarding their purchasing behavior and brand loyalty.

Another challenge presented to the idea of theory within a research paradigm is that many new theories and study paradigms have emerged in recent decades, including post-colonialism, cultural studies, and feminism. There has consequently been a new focus on creating paradigms of theory, with entire academic departments devoted to this endeavor.

Swedberg (2010) points out that the years after World War II especially saw great advances in social science investigation. When it comes to the specific development of concepts regarding "theory," however, such development has been uneven, particularly in the social sciences. While the methods associated with social science have advanced greatly, the concept of theory itself has not — both for the reasons mentioned above and because, as Swedberg states, a distinction needs to be made between "theorizing" and "theory." While "theory" has received considerable attention in the social sciences, "theorizing" has not. Theory is the end product of a process, and by examining that process, the phenomenon of theory itself can be more clearly identified. According to Swedberg, theorizing can employ methods such as induction, deduction, generalizing, and model-building — all methods that can be used to arrive at a particular theory.

Theorizing as a Process: Rules and Methods

Swedberg (2012) distinguishes between the context of discovery and that of justification, using this distinction as a point of departure. The context of discovery encompasses the subjective cognitive processes by which thinking is performed, while justification refers to how these processes are communicated to others in a manner that adheres to the requirements of scientific rigor.

From this departure point, Swedberg (2012) develops several rules according to which the theorizing process can take place. The first is observation. For the social sciences, this means that the investigator observes certain phenomena in society that can then be investigated. Swedberg's (2012) second rule is to "name and formulate the central concept." The observation process is therefore followed by a process of making explicit claims about what has been seen.

The third rule (Swedberg, 2012) is to "build out the theory." In this way, the central concept is developed further by identifying structure, pattern, or organization within the phenomenon being studied. In a comparative study of purchasing behavior among American and Kenyan youth, for example, this stage would likely include initially separate accounts of youth in both countries before comparing and contrasting them.

The fourth rule requires that the investigator complete the tentative theory and include an explanation. At this stage, a full tentative theory is formulated, with particular emphasis on explanation. This marks the end of the theorizing process and provides a platform for the development of actual theory.

In his study on theory, Wacker (1998) considers how theory can be defined and how it can inform theory-building research. The author notes that the concept of "theory" requires four basic criteria: conceptual definitions, domain limitations, relationship-building, and predictions. Theory-building, as Wacker describes it, can be compared with Swedberg's (2012) idea of "theorizing" — the process of arriving at a theory rather than the theory itself. According to Wacker, theory-building provides a framework for analysis, facilitates the development of a field of investigation, and is also useful for solving practical problems as they arise in the real world.

When a sound theory is built, it exhibits uniqueness, parsimony, conservation, generalizability, fecundity, internal consistency, empirical riskiness, and abstraction. In order to arrive at this kind of theory, the theory-building process must identify similarities across domains to ensure the significance of the theory being constructed.

Theory Versus Related Concepts

Theory can be distinguished from several related concepts, including hypothesis, paradigm, model, and concept. According to Harlow (2009), defining "theory" is difficult because there is no universal or fixed meaning associated with it. The author mentions several possibilities: theory could concern a determining law or set of laws, or a construct or set of constructs that enhance a researcher's ability to understand phenomena. In either case, an existing theory can be tested or a new theory can be developed. In the proposed research, theory will be tested in terms of brand loyalty among young people in developed and developing countries, with the possibility of enhancing and reinforcing existing theories while developing extensions to them.

A concept is somewhat simpler than a theory (Zikmund, p. 295) in that it concerns a singular idea, such as age, sex, or education. It may also entail abstract ideas such as corporate culture, loyalty, personality, and trust. A theory, by contrast, uses these concepts to form a more complex idea about an investigated phenomenon.

A hypothesis is not yet a theory; it is simply a projection of what might be true, formulated as a precursor to theory-building. Should a hypothesis be proven, a theory can be built upon its proof.

A model, in turn, can be built upon the strength of a theory. Once a theory has been established, a model can be constructed to explain or present information in a more effective and accessible way.

Conclusion

In terms of brand loyalty, theory influences practice and consumer behavior in the global market. Theory and practice exist in a continuous cycle of influence. Theory is developed to form the basis for practice. Practice, in turn, reveals the need for new theoretical investigations, which again provides a basis for more effective practice. Changes in established practice are often the result of the evolving dynamics of our current fast-paced technological world.

These concerns will form the basis of the theoretical discussion on brand loyalty in terms of the United States and Kenya. Issues such as customer self-concept, the perception of brand identity, and the theories surrounding these will be investigated and applied to brand loyalty in the sports apparel industry. Kenya and the United States are two countries situated in different geographical areas and shaped by different cultures. It will be instructive to determine whether the needs of consumers from these two countries are being aligned by technological trends and social media, which have created a perception that the world is increasingly flat and that Western influence is significant in the African region.

There is a theoretical perception that social pressure and the use of a local or international celebrity are the primary influences on young people's decisions to purchase name-brand sportswear in both Kenya and the United States. This notion will either be supported or refuted by the qualitative survey to be conducted in both countries.

Additionally, the theory that advertising aids purchasing behavior and influences young people to buy sportswear will be tested. Companies need to ensure that their products remain fresh, new, and innovative in order to maintain the loyalty of their existing customers.