After recently presenting at the ASIS&T 24-Hour Global Conference 2022 I have been thinking about the importance (and lack thereof) of theory in academia. Before I start telling you about the road my thoughts have led me on I want to clarify: I DO think theory can be important for research and that an understanding of the theory that previous researchers have used to make sense of similar topics can help someone conduct high quality research. That being said, I also think there may be an overemphasis on the importance of theory in academia. So let's explore my theoretical ruminations of the past weeks. I'll begin with some insights from research I've been reading to help me prepare the methodology chapter of my thesis (so the first bit might be tough to get through) and follow this with a combination of my own thought process over the last few weeks and some insights from other attendees of the conference. I conclude with my own opinions on where theory should lie in research and whether I think we do, or don't, stress its importance the appropriate amount in academia.
The word "theory" has multiple definitions, and there is not currently, nor is there likely to be in the future, a single definition accepted across all of academia. Pinfield et al. (2021 pp. 44-45) maintain that there are different conceptualisations of theory which may differ between disciplines and populations. For example, general dictionary definitions of the term were divided into at least three categories by Pinfield et al. (2021 p. 43): something abstracting reality into basic principles; something explaining or aiding understanding; and something that guides practice. In academic disciplines theory may take the form of "rigorous mathematical laws", "explanatory models", "descriptions of causal processes", "abstract account of something", "conceptual artefacts", and more (Pinfield et al., 2021 pp. 45-48). In my academic discipline of library and information sciences (LIS), the discussion of theory is often cited as lacking (e.g., Lor, 2014 p. 30). Lor (2014 p. 30) citing Anyon (1982 p. 35) states that theory and data are in symbiosis; they feed into each other to the benefit of both. A main criticism of the lack of theory in LIS is that data and patterns are collected and observed with no theory to ground them (Lor, 2014 p. 26). In essence, the argument by Lor (2014) is that without a theory to act as an explanation for why patterns exist, any data generated and analysed do not enhance knowledge. In a similar vein, Pettigrew & McKechnie (2001) suggest that in fields such as LIS, when there are no theories developed specifically for that field, then there is no way to create clear disciplinary boundaries (e.g., there is no way to tell whether a bit of research falls into the field of LIS or in the field of migration). In their research on how theory is used in LIS research, it was found that use of theory is increasing in the literature but it was unclear how large a role theory played in the actual research (Pettigrew & McKechnie, 2001 p. 70). Pinfield et al. (2021 pp. 52-53) suggest that the lack of theory identified by Lor (2014) and Pettigrew & McKechnie (2001) may be due to the usefulness of theory in the practical work of the LIS field. Unlike fields such as nursing, religious studies, and military communities of practice, there is not a significant amount of "practice theory" in LIS (Pinfield et al., 2021 p. 53). Pettigrew & McKechnie (2001 p. 69) see this in the citation practices in the LIS literature that does include theory, mainly that the citation practices of researchers isn't consistent, which may indicate that researchers recognise the importance of theory but are not aware of best practices of application. Indeed, Pinfield et al. (2021) suggest that rather than grand "theories of everything", the most useful application of theory in LIS is the use of mid-range theories which are more detailed than hypotheses but fall short of a theory meant to explain every nuance of a situation. It is in this sweet spot that a theory has some practical use, as reasons behind patterns are explained but there is space for exceptions to be made and adjustments enacted based on individual situations. Theory, therefore, is important for explanation but in the field of LIS there may not be a single unifying theory such as what might be strived for in a discipline such as Physics. The purpose for my individual ruminations about theory are based on feedback a received on a dry-run of my conference presentation. Multiple members of my research group presented at the conference, all of whom had great presentations at the conference, and we held a group meeting to practice our presentations and receive feedback the week before the conference. One member of our research group gave each of us the same advice, "Your work would benefit from including theory in the presentation". This is a good point, especially from a senior researcher, because when we conduct our PhD one of the things that you are taught is the importance of theory. Most PhD works (mine included) have some sort of theory that guides their research. As mentioned about, this theory helps them actually make sense of any patterns that occur in their data. However, on this occasion I wasn't sure that the advice about theory making the presentation stronger was the best advice. Cue three weeks of me thinking about, reading about, and trying to make sense of my feelings in my own head. In researcher terms, this might be called reflexivity. Or it might be called an emotional spiral. Potato, potahto. Anyway. The research I was presenting on hadn't been based in a theory initially. It was based on personal experience which was then explored in greater detail using the experiences of additional researchers as case studies. Theory didn't play into it, we just wanted to know "what is going on". Lor (2014) would call this naïve empiricism, and perhaps it was. However, after my time spent thinking about this, I realised that what bothers me about the emphasis on including theory in all research (and the additional expectation that the same or similar theory will continue throughout all your research) is that theory is a very "Western" concept. My reason for putting "Western" in quotation marks is a separate blog post, but for current purposes it can be considered the majority of Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and North America. The academy as we know it is largely based on "Western" values and thoughts and a great deal of the academy focuses on very specific outputs (e.g., published papers, with the "highest quality" journals often being published in English) and steps deemed best practice. Theory is one of these steps. My issue is not with the concept of theory, or even the application of theory in research. The issue for me is that theory is a box in which data is put. Boxes can be important. Boxes have helped humans survive, and the tendency to create and put things into boxes has continued through our evolution for a reason. However, by preemptively putting something into a box (in this case, putting a pattern found in data in a box) can keep us from considering other options. So I think theory is important to know and enact in research, but it can also limit the findings to only what we have already considered as "truth". As a senior researcher at the ASIS&T 24-Hour Global Conference suggested, it is a good idea to be aware of the multiple theories related to a research project from the beginning, but that doesn't mean you have to choose one that will fit at the start because it may not be apparent which one is best until you hit the end of analysis. In PhD research, I think it is helpful to have a theory in mind in the beginning, but this does not mean you should be locked in to this theory throughout and it doesn't mean that the process of your PhD should be repeated for every bit of research. In conclusion, then, my ruminations on theory have resulted in a vague acceptance that I have to include theory in my research but it doesn't mean I have to like it. Or perhaps, the results are an acknowledgement that use of theory is lacking in LIS research but that it is important that we make sure any theory we use is appropriate and is communicated effectively. The most important thing, in my opinion, when it comes to theory in research (in and beyond the LIS discipline) is that the academy is set up in a very specific way to consider specific outputs and types of conclusions. As researchers we must be aware of what might be missing from the way theory is created/communicated, and whether the "boxes" we use as explanation might be hiding additional truth from us. Citations: Lor, P.J. (2014). Revitalizing comparative library and information science: Theory and metatheory. Journal of Documentation, 70(1), 25 - 51. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-10-2012-0129 Pettigrew, K.E., & McKechnie, L.E.F. (2001). The use of theory in information science research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(1), 62 - 73. https://doi.org/10.1002/1532-2890(2000)52:1<62::AID-ASI1061>3.0.CO;2-J Pinfield, S., Wakeling, S., Bawden, D., & Robinson, L. (2020). Open Access in Theory and Practice: The Theory-Practice Relationship and Openness (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429276842
2 Comments
|
A Second Blog Page?This is the part of the blog specifically about my PhD. It will include updates, musings, and advice. Archives
August 2022
Categories |