Self-Esteem Research, Theory, and Practice Toward a Positive ...

46 SELF-ESTEEM RESEARCH, THEORY, AND PRACTICEThe significance of this limitation is important in regard to selfesteemresearch, especially when it comes to trying to demonstrate thelink between self-esteem and behavior, which seems to stand as the majorcriticism against the field.THE PROBLEM OF SCIENTIFIC PARADIGMSAND SELF-ESTEEM RESEARCHExamining the methodological diversity in this field suggests that eachapproach offers a way of finding out valuable information about selfesteem.In fact, every method has generated an entire stream of self-esteemresearch and findings. Yet, we also saw that each approach also has seriouslimitations, including difficulty in achieving any type of consensusabout the findings that are generated from such diverse work. Indeed,some self-concept experts suggest that investigating this class of phenomenausing the scientific method is essentially a hopeless task (Diggory,1966). Others regard the methodological difficulties in researching selfesteemas reflecting the limits of our quantitative sophistication and,therefore, call for “improved” statistical methodologies as the only hope(Smelser, 1989).Today, there is a general recognition from both sociologists and psychologistsstudying self-esteem that the field is in a state of methodologicalflux. Scheff, Retzinger, and Ryan (1989), for instance, examined sixmajor reviews of the methodological issues facing such research. Fourreached a negative conclusion about the possibility of resolving the problemseffectively, whereas two were hopeful about it. Scheff and colleaguesconclude thatEven reviewers who are completely sympathetic to the intentions of thequantitative studies acknowledge that these studies have produced noresults. In our opinion, the implication of all six of the general reviewsis not that the field is healthy but that it is in a state of crisis, and hasbeen for some time. . . . We do not claim that the quantitative studieshave been useless. On the contrary, we believe that they were necessary.Their very lack of success suggests the need for new directions in theoryand method that might be more suited to the problem at hand. . . .Perhaps what is needed is a new paradigm more closely connected withthe particular problem of self-esteem. (1989, p. 177)Indeed, the situation may have become even more acute over thepast few years given the continuation of the “anti-self-esteem movement.”Yet, a crisis for one methodological paradigm can be an opportunityfor another (Kuhn, 1962), and one way to see this possibility in terms