This case illustrates several aspects of the development of theory. It shows how theories arise as answers to questions about things that scholars observe. Josh had become interested in the Moral Majority and found that the conflict between this organization and outsiders was not only difficult but shared features with other conflicts. Even personal conflicts such as those found in mediation can share these characteristics. So he and his colleagues set out to try to explain this type of conflict. As such, understandings about conflict grow primarily though intension.
        The resulting theory has a number of concepts, such as moral conflict, moral orders, incommensurate realities, reciprocated diatribe, and transcendent eloquence. Both causal and practical necessity were used in the theory's explanation. Moral conflicts were viewed as caused by the clash of incommensurate moral orders, and the course of the conflict itself was seen as the outcome of the communicator's attempts to achieve goals. Note however that the emphasis is predominantly on the latter.
        The work of Jeremy, Josh, and Patricia is not traditional social science. It did not make use of the hypothetoco-deductive method nor did it seek universal covering laws. Because of the use of case studies and interpretation rather than control, manipulation, and measurement, the research program was more in the "new paradigm" tradition. As such, this work is probably more in the Worldview II camp than Worldview I. It is definitely actional in orientation because it looks at the ways in which people try to accomplish their own objectives in conflict and the consequences of their actions. It is also value-conscious because it is sensitive to the harms of conflict and seeks to find ways to mitigate the damaging effects of moral conflicts.
        The theory also serves several important functions. First, it helps the researchers organize and summarize what they have observed about moral conflicts. Second, it helps to focus their attention on particular important aspects of conflicts in their case studies. Third, it clarifies what happens in certain kinds of conflicts, and fourth it gives the researchers ideas about interesting events to examine. Fifth, the theory helps them to tell other people what they have done and observed, and sixth, it suggests solutions to be pursued.
        The theory is probably a fairly good one. It does not cover a very broad domain, but it does explain a large number of events encountered in everyday life. Some would say that the theory is appropriate and consistent with the kinds of events being studied and that more traditional social science methods would not have been very useful with this kind of problem. The theory seems to have heuristic value because it stimulates an unending potential of case studies. It also seems to have some validity in that it has pragmatic value, corresponds with observations made of real events, and seems to be generalizable to a number of cases. Finally, the theory is parsimonious, relying on a few very rich concepts.

(Adapted from Littlejohn, 1994).