LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for JESSE Archives


JESSE Archives

JESSE Archives


JESSE@LISTSERV.UTK.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

JESSE Home

JESSE Home

JESSE  April 2011

JESSE April 2011

Subject:

Doctoral Expectations and Frameworks

From:

"David E. Beard" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Open Lib/Info Sci Education Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 8 Apr 2011 21:32:39 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (252 lines)

I am not a library science faculty member, though my wife is pursuing  
such a degree.  The context in which she is pursuing it is  
idiosyncratic and troubled, in many ways, and this question is part of  
that troubling, and so I have reflected on it.

The notion of a "theoretical framework" as discussed in this thread is  
a common one in doctoral study, but it is not a universal one.  It is  
a historical term, located in a particular context and a particular  
set of communities;  it points to a particular trajectory of  
humanistic research in the last 40 years.  The "rise of theory" is  
sometimes seen as a response to a certain scientism and/or formalism:   
the "rise of theory" [meaning the works of Foucault, Barthes,  
Kristeva;  the semioticians, the deconstructivists, the Marxists, the  
phenomenologists, the feminists] in literary and cultural studies was  
a corrective to excesses of New Criticism, on the one hand, and  
appeals to a scientism [a science of literature or of culture] on the  
other hand.

"The sense of objective recognition of knowledge and experience, as  
well as the internal-external relationship (the dualism of appearance  
verses reality), was questioned by the rising tide of theory in the  
1950s and 1960s, conditioned by the growth of a view that everything  
is relative and constructed. Theory became necessary in this context  
to interpret and produce meaning. As meaning was held in the  
relationships between things, as well as the subjective response, this  
meaning was not static, but ever changing and shifting. Theory became  
the path to reveal meaning where absolute truth was not possible"  
(Plowright).

To be clear, our sense of the use of theory has developed beyond this  
initial exigence:  "What if theory isn't about uncovering metaphysical  
meaning at all, but instead is an act of mediation “between old ways  
of speaking, developed to accomplish earlier tasks, with new ways of  
speaking, developed in response to new demands”14? Or theory as an act  
of critical inquiry to deepen knowledge within the syntax of a  
discipline?" --Plowright, "The Poverty of Contemporary Theory in  
Architecture"

But the fact remains:  not all disciplines made this "turn to theory,"  
and among those that did, the turn is transformed as it moves from  
context to context.  There are scholars in communication who would not  
imagine articulating their theoretical framework, and if they were  
forced to do so in a way that would satisfy the colleagues that value  
"theoretical frameworks," they would find the exercise an unhelpful  
dialogue in philosophizing that gets in the way, rather than  
undergirds, empirical research (hello, Michigan State!).  There are  
historians who are uninterested in questions of the theoretical frames  
for their historiographical work, but instead in digging in, up to  
their elbows, into historical work.  There are architects who who are  
uninterested in theoretical frames and yet produce magnificent spaces,  
about which architectural critics produce theoretically informed  
treatises.

LIS is a hybrid field;  it has been one for some time.  I have seen  
LIS researchers present ham-fisted appropriations of Wittgenstein in a  
painful attempt to give a theoretical frame for a research project  
that did not require one, functionally, or at least did not require  
that particular misreading of W.  Theory-anxiety does not necessarily  
improve the work of the field.

What I want to be sure to correct, in this thread, is the  
unintentional naturalization or reification of theory as a defining  
characteristic of doctoral study.  It is not a natural component of  
doctoral study in every field, nor would I expect it to have been a  
component of the doctoral training of every LIS faculty member, given  
the diverse backgrounds and structures of LIS graduate programs.  Nor  
is it a necessary component of quality, peer-reviewed research in  
every field;  the same complications in the interdisciplinary nature  
of LIS apply.

I do believe that the bulk of LIS programs have adopted this  
historical term, with its historical, contextually grounded meaning,  
as a transhistorical value for evaluating their current work.  And as  
a result, I think we get quality work by folks like Hope Olsen and  
Greg Downey.  I also think it explains the ascendance of theoretically  
informed and sophisticated works by Buckland and the resurgence in  
interest in Briet.  The embrace of theory has worked to place LIS in  
conversation with the other Humanities fields in the contemporary  
university.  And personally, the rise of theory in LIS is what makes  
me able to connect LIS to my own field.

But there was a time before Theory.  In the time of theory, there is  
solid intellectual work done without overt attention to the questions  
of Theory.  And no doubt, there will be a time After Theory.  The  
choice to make theory-work essential to doctoral study is a good one,  
one that advances your field within a certain context, but it creates  
some challenges and opportunities in articulating what that means to  
the diversity of students and junior faculty active in LIS RESEARCH.   
We (you) cannot treat this position, this collective disciplinary  
decision, as "natural" or "the way it oughtta be."  Rather, it is the  
condition we construct as we teach, as we deliver papers, as we peer  
review journal articles.  It requires effort and commitment to enact.








-- 

David Beard
Associate Professor of Rhetoric, Scientific and Technical Communication
Graduate Faculty in English, UMD
Graduate Faculty in Literacy and Rhetorical Studies, UMTC
Department of Writing Studies, University of Minnesota -- Duluth
Humanities 420, UMD, Duluth, MN 55812
218-726-8442 / [log in to unmask]
http://www.google.com/profiles/rhetoricguy
http://davidbeard.efoliomn.com/

Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments,  
is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain  
confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or an  
employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended  
recipient, any disclosure, distribution, or the taking of any action  
in reliance on the contents of the e-mail or attached files is  
prohibited.

This correspondence is not private and may be subject to access by the  
State or Federal Government, as I am a public employee.  Matters of a  
personal or political nature should be sent to my gmail account:  
[log in to unmask]


Quoting "Laval Hunsucker" <[log in to unmask]>:

> Very good post, in my opinion. Only one small observation :
> that your concluding salvo is [ intentionally ? ] internally
> anachronistic ( in a way, even doubly so ).  Which didn't, I
> hasten to say, stop me from having a good laugh. Thanks
> for that -- and best of luck with your studies, Jonathan !
>
>  - Laval Hunsucker
>    Breukelen, Nederland
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "Jonathan Dorey, Mr" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Thu, April 7, 2011 2:38:20 AM
> Subject: RE : Doctoral Expectations and Frameworks
>
> If I may chime in with my personal experience and my personal opinion as a
> current doctoral student... and by personal I mean it is my own and  
> not that of
> my school.
>
> I am currently completing my first year of doctoral studies at McGill
> University. My research questions are still not fully clear yet, let alone my
> theoretical framework! However, as you pointed out (which is something that I
> hadn't really thought off in those terms, but agree with), the difference
> between a master's degree and a doctorate's degree lies in one's ability to
> ground and frame a research problem in past theories and practices to address
> current and future issues. At this point in time, I feel that current Ph.D.
> students should have enough literature, research, and expertise on  
> which to base
> themselves. At the same time, the growing nature of our  
> interdisciplinary fields
> forces us to borrow from other fields (hard sciences, education technologies,
> educational psychology, psychology, linguistics, etc.). If anything,  
> this should
> provide ample opportunities to clearly state and "back" our own research by
> clearly addressing the theoretical framework question. Although this  
> isn't the
> focus of the various courses I took, it remains a requirement and certainly a
> fundamental issue, at McGill anyway. At least this is my understanding of our
> internal requirements, as well as of what is expected from any Ph.D. in our
> field. So while I did not answer your question, I think this remains  
> a central
> and fundamental point in one's education, research and dissertation.
>
> Now, the "previous research" "thing". In my opinion, one (student or  
> not) should
> go as far back as necessary to inform their research, to justify the need to
> research a specific issue or issues, and to properly show that  
> well... you know
> what you're talking about! While setting a specific date to cover  
> the literature
> in a field may be acceptable for a class paper, or preliminary  
> research, doing
> so for an entire dissertation is, well, I don't think I need to say  
> it. However,
> if this specific student is studying a very specific topic which did  
> not exist
> prior to 2006 (I don't know, say a bibliometric analysis of Tweets reposts)
> where completely new models are proposed and completely data  
> analysis tools were
> employed, there might be an acceptable justification in setting this  
> arbitrarily
> 2006 date. And then again... Why reinvent the wheel? Old solutions  
> often apply
> to current problems with minor tweaks. Limiting my investigation of previous
> research was not a requirement in my program.
>
> There are many different institutions out there, with many different
> requirements. Maybe the issues you are raising are only a mark of which
> programs/schools have higher expectations and which have lower  
> expectations. Or
> maybe expectations were not clearly stated or misunderstood? That  
> also happens.
>
> On a much lighter note, if one plans on submitting a dissertation without a
> theoretical framework, I would expect the dissertation to be carved in clay
> tablets and defended in a cave. With a dinosaur bone in the hair or the nose!
>
> Jonathan Dorey
> Certified Translator, OTTIAQ
> Ph.D. student – Information studies, McGill
> MLIS – Archives, McGill
> ________________________________________
> De : Open Lib/Info Sci Education Forum [[log in to unmask]] de la part de
> [log in to unmask] [[log in to unmask]]
> Date d'envoi : 6 avril 2011 16:23
> À : [log in to unmask]
> Objet : Doctoral Expectations and Frameworks
>
> Two incidents in the past month lead me to raise a question on this  
> list about
> doctoral studies. I want to be very careful to frame the question so  
> that it is
> clear that I am seeking to understand expectations not to criticize them.
> At a recent doctoral student presentation the candidate was asked about the
> theoretical framework for the study. The response was that the  
> institution did
> not require a theoretical framework (for some of us this is a distinguishing
> feature between master’s and doctoral work). Is this the case at your
> institution? Is this a change?
> Today a doctoral student from another institution asked me about  
> recent research
> in a specific area. The institution “requires that I use research no further
> back than the year 2006.” (I will set aside whether there is any relationship
> between the topic of study and the date prescription.) Again, is  
> this the case
> at your institution? Is this a change?
> I have not encountered these before and wonder if there are changes  
> underway or
> I am less aware of expectations elsewhere or whether these are unique.
> Thank you.
> [cid:3384940994_50458785]
> Ken Haycock
> voice: 778-689-5938
>
>



----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using the University of Minnesota Duluth Webmail

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995
December 1994
November 1994
October 1994
September 1994
August 1994
July 1994
June 1994
May 1994
April 1994
March 1994
February 1994
January 1994

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.UTK.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager