ABSTRACT
This chapter will argue that, although many researchers of “race” issues in Britain pay lip service to the need to integrate theory, methods and substantive findings in a coherent fashion, few in fact do so. As with sociological work in other areas, it is all too often the case that reports of empirical work take the form of an “obligatory” (and sometimes perfunctory) theory chapter (s) followed by “the findings”; giving the impression that “theorizing” and “collecting and interpreting data” are two distinct and separable enterprises. Wrongly, in my view, sociologists often institutionalize these divisions in the delegation of duties within a research team. Thus, for example, survey methodologists are not seen as having anything to contribute to the “real task” of theorizing and similarly the task of analysis is one to be solely entrusted to the “number-crunchers”. In this way the needs of the data analyst can be ignored in early fieldwork. Consequently, theoretical questions may remain unanswerable because of decisions taken quite independently of the initial (theorizing) phase. I would go as far as to argue that most major projects fail in some respects to come to terms effectively with the imperative of a holistic approach.
