Regarding this comment:
" 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."
This observation is applicable more to what the humanities considers "theory" (more specifically, critical social theory). And it is true that the there has been a much broader adoption of critical social theory in the humanities - particularly in the Post World War II period.
However, two additional points: 1] this fact does not preclude the profitable deployment of critical social theory in LIS research; 2] nor does this particular interpretation of "theory" include the body of theoretical interventions emanating from LIS in particular and applied to LIS concerns.
Finally, as an historian, it is incumbent upon me to raise the matter that there never was "a time before theory." Scholars may not have been as aware of the theoretical assumptions underlying their work. They may not have been called into account for them. They may not have viewed the core conceits of positivism, for instance, as "theory," but that work contained theoretical assumptions that today we more frequently, and appropriately, recognize as such.
~anthony
Anthony Bernier, Ph.D.
San Jose State University
One Washington Square
San Jose, CA 95192-0029
[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: Open Lib/Info Sci Education Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David E. Beard
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 7:33 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Doctoral Expectations and Frameworks
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
|
