When discussing the relationship between sociological theory and empirical research, Merton always emphasized how each draws strength from the other (e.g., Merton 1968c). Without theory, empirical research often lacks wider significance, and without empirical research, sociological theory easily turns into fictitious storytelling. Although most of us recognize the importance of a symbiotic relationship between theory and research, the current division of labour within the discipline would suggest otherwise. Most theorists specialize in theory and have little or no contact with empirical research, while empirical researchers are rarely seriously interested in theory.

In an influential article, Goldthorpe (1996) discussed how one can bridge this gap between theory and empirical research by establishing a closer link between action-based theories and quantitative research. He argued that the contribution of quantitative research to sociology ‘will be seriously limited unless it is allied in some way or other to accounts of social action’ (1996: 111). For a variety of reasons Goldthorpe meant that rational-choice theory was particularly well suited to this purpose. Like Edling (2000), we have a somewhat mixed attitude towards some of the details in Goldthorpe's proposal. On the one hand his arguments for establishing close links between action-based theories and quantitative research are important and to the point. On the other hand his reasons for believing that rational-choice theory is uniquely suited to integrating quantitative research and sociological theory are not as persuasive. What sociology seems to need is not to bind itself to one specific substantive theory.