As Elfreda Chatman well explained, the purpose of theory is an attempt to explain a phenomenon.  Thus I conclude that a theoretical framework is an attempt at an attempt to explain a phenomenon.  A model is a cursory attempt at an attempt to attempt to explain a phenomenon.  It would seem that we would require a theory, a theoretical framework, or minimally a proposed model assuming that a dissertation is studying a phenomenon (or perhaps more than one).  If not, I would not consider it a dissertation.

Well, there is the result of having your brain scrambled in a blender.  But as Elfreda Chatman said, too many people want to make theory a complicated issue.  I tend to follow her advise...KISS.

Now, as for the date restriction on referenced literature?  Hmmmmm, has anyone conducted a content analysis of LIS literature examining/comparing the literature review content to the analysis and findings content of peer-reviewed journals?

------------------------------------------------------------------
Laurie J. Bonnici, Ph.D.
Project ALFA     http://www.projectalfa.slis.ua.edu
Assistant Professor
University of Alabama
College of Communication and Information Sciences
School of Library and Information Studies
Tuscaloosa, AL
Phone:  205-348-8824
Fax: 205-348-3746

________________________________________
From: Open Lib/Info Sci Education Forum [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Shawne Miksa [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2011 6:06 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Doctoral Expectations and Frameworks

I’ve been pondering this thread for a few days, as well as talking with
various doctoral students who have become increasingly confused and
frustrated with this thread because of the multiple definitions (maybe) of
theory or theoretical framework.

So, define theory.

Define theoretical framework.

Define the steps for theory creation.

Provide a link to the document from your institution that states a
dissertation must include a theoretical framework—as defined and agreed upon
by all your faculty. I don’t think I have ever seen such a thing. As such, I
would never make an assumption about one institution’s supposed requirement,
or lack thereof, based on the one student’s response.

 I had the great and terrifying honor of taking Elfreda Chatman’s “Theory
Development” course at FSU in the Fall of 1998.  She began by stating that
most of what is called ‘theory’ is in fact not a theory.  We learned the
structure of a theory, we built our own theories (my favorite was the one
Laurie Bonnici and I created called “the theory of bubbas and bubbettes”),
we studied “theorists” and their theories---where she again emphasized that
some were not theories but perhaps just incomplete models or hypothesis. We
discussed logic, proving theories, grounding theories, what makes a theory a
universal theory, and how we might use theory in our own work. (My good
friend Laurie described very aptly how a person feels after taking Elfreda’s
class---as if someone opened up your brain, scrabbled it with an egg beater,
and then put the top back on. )

We can discuss theoretical concepts that apply to a study in the literature
review—is this what we commonly call creating a theoretical framework?  Does
any program require all their students to write a separate chapter just for
theory? Can some dissertations essentially be grounded theory--the beginning
of a new theory? ( I do, but some of my colleagues disagree with me on that
one. Makes for interesting debates.)  Can we take a part of a theory—one
concept, for example—and base a study on it? Is that creating a theoretical
framework?

I’m teaching my first doctoral course this semester and I quickly realized I
needed to dust off some of my old understandings of theories, models, etc. I
started re-reading books and collecting new books on theory construction,
grounded theory, methodologies. They don’t seem to have very many common
definitions. One work that I have found helpful is "Theory Construction and
Model-building Skills: a practical guide for social scientists" by James
Jaccard and Jacob Jacoby (2010).  Here is the first paragraph of the Preface:

"Theory construction is at the heart of the scientific process. The
strategies that social scientists use to generate and develop ideas are
important to understand and foster in young academics and investigators as
they prepare for a research-oriented career.  Although books have been
written about theory construction, there are surprisingly few books on the
topic that tackle the problem of teaching students and young professionals
in a practical and concrete way, how to theorize. Students, especially
graduate students, take one or more courses on research methods and data
analysis, but few experience more than a lecture or two, read a chapter or
two, on theory construction. It is no wonder that students are often
intimidated by the prospect of constructing theories." (p. ix)

This describes exactly a part of working with doctoral students that is the
most challenging. I think most students do employ theoretical frameworks
based on their deep immersion in the literature that gives contexts for
their studies---they just may not realize it. Or perhaps they realize the
framework they need doesn’t yet exist. I’ve certainly read many articles—and
have assigned my students to read them—that are full of lofty, deep,
profound, and abstract thoughts and ideas, but that are no where near being
a theory. At least, not as far as I have been taught.

S.Miksa


************************************************************
Shawne D. Miksa, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Acting Associate Director, IISPhD Program
Department of Library and Information Sciences
College of Information
University of North Texas
email: [log in to unmask]
http://courses.unt.edu/smiksa/index.htm
office 940-565-3560 fax 940-565-3101
************************************************************