In addition, those who were involved in the invention of the microscope had some kind of theory that there was something to see, or why invent it?
 
And those who acknowledged that there was a reality that the microscope did not present went on to invent the electron microscope. Which leads to the inevitable question, what else are we not seeing because of the limitations of our tools? They only show us what they are designed to show us.
 
I agree with Shawne that this discussion is plagued by a lack of definition. In the humanities and to some extent the social sciences, "theoretical perspective" is used in more or less the same way as "paradigm" is in the hard sciences.
 
Suzanne M. Stauffer, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
School of Library and Information Science
Louisiana State University
275 Coates Hall
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
(225)578-1461
Fax: (225)578-4581
[log in to unmask]


Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?



--T.S. Eliot, "Choruses from The Rock"







From: Open Lib/Info Sci Education Forum on behalf of Michael Olsson
Sent: Mon 4/11/2011 6:27 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Doctoral Expectations and Frameworks-Pierce Butler (1933)





Bad day or not, Paul, your assertion is simply inaccurate. Natural philosophers going back to Aristotle and beyonfd had theories about the structre of small creatures, the make-up of matter etc. The microscope was important because it challenged those theories and required the development of new ones.

And those who believe they describe reality simply do not want to acknowledge their own prejudices!

Michael

Dr Michael Olsson
Graduate Coordinator
Senior Lecturer, Information and Knowledge Management
University of Technology, Sydney
ph:  +61 2 9514 2722
Fax: +61 2 9514 2723
________________________________________
From: Open Lib/Info Sci Education Forum [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask] [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, 12 April 2011 8:25 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Doctoral Expectations and Frameworks-Pierce Butler (1933)

I cannot agree.

When the microscope itself was discovered, no one had any idea what it
would reveal! The view the privileges theory  is comfortable for those who
do not confront refractory reality every day.

[sorry, it's been a bad day]

-paul



NEW EMAIL: [log in to unmask]  please use this from now on,
Paul B. Kantor, Rutgers. (v)732.932.7500x8216  (FX)732.932.1504
Office: Cecilia Gal 732 932 7500 x8220. Details: http://scils.rutgers.edu/~kantor

On Sun, 10 Apr 2011, Karen Weaver wrote:

> Some may be interested to read what Pierce Butler thought on
> theoretical frameworks
> which was originally published in 1933 in his book 'An Introduction to
> Library Science'
>
> originally published in 1933, by The University of Chicago.  Reissued
> in 1961 under the Phoenix Books imprint  of the University of Chicago
> Press, and reprinted in Appendix E of Dr. John V Richardson Jr.'s  The
> Gospel of scholarship: Pierce Butler and a critique of American
> librarianship  1992 The Scarecrow Press -Metuchen NJ   /  excerpt
> below from pp 234-236
> Again, sharing for anyone who may be interested......best, kw
>
> "Excerpt from Butler's Chapter 5: Practical Considerations"
>
> II :
>
> "The development of library science may be expected to do more for
> professional practice than even the undoubted benefits which will
> accrue from a clear definition of the professional motives.  It will
> establish that theoretical framework without which no deliberate
> extension of knowledge is possible.  Modern man's acceptance of
> science is characterized by two distinct phases: He believes that the
> knowledge which he has is of the utmost usefulness; he is likewise
> possessed of an optimism that it can be increased, with the same rate
> of value, almost indefinitely.  He may carp at the apparent futility
> of particular investigations but his faith in research, as such, is
> unshaken. Yet in spite of the strength of these convictions he usually
> has a conception of the scientific methods of exploration which is
> hopelessly mistaken.  One may suspect in turning over the pages of
> almost any library journal that the recurrent demand for research in
> librarianship involves only too often a presumption that nothing will
> be required for this except time and industry.  In reality there is no
> such thing as scientific research until a theoretical hypothesis has
> been formulated.  Chemists do not make random mixtures to see what
> will happen.  Biologists do not thrust under their microscopes the
> first living organism at hand.  Educators do not rush to the nearest
> classroom or sociologists to the nearest jail.  Before there can be
> scientific observation there must be intellectual consideration.
> Chronologically experiment comes after hypothesis, not before it."
>
> "There are many factors in the present state of scientific studies
> which obscure the real nature of science itself.  The most potent
> perhaps is that in the multitude of activities popularly called
> scientific so conspicuous a part is taken by what are merely
> pedagogical techniques.  For every laboratory that is devoted to
> research there are hundreds which serve no other purpose than to
> establish in students a direct knowledge of phenomena and the habit of
> scientific procedure.  To a lesser degree this is also true of many of
> the investigations which are carried out by candidates for the higher
> education degrees.  The student himself is still too ignorant of the
> field to discover a serious problem; his teacher is usually so
> harrassed by the same need in each of his long series of pupils that
> his imagination cannot produce one on the spur of the moment.  Indeed,
> some fields that have long been worked it is almost impossible to
> discover a reasonable dissertation subject that has not already been
> used.  And, after all, the interests of both the candidate and his
> director are concentrated on the question of method.  It is therefore
> neither surprising nor deplorable that much of the output of this kind
> of research should be superficial, a mere collection of obvious facts
> discussed with every possible pomposity of scientific manipulation and
> technical jargon."
>
> "Fortunately science does not depend upon this sort of thing for its
> sustenance.  It continues its progress in spite of, rather than by
> virtue of, the multitude of its votaries.  Only those may assist in
> the process who conceive their quest with reference to its general
> significance, and for this an intellectual theory is prerequisite.
> But unfortunately, to the neophyte and the layman what is most
> conspicuous is found most impressive.  Because vast numbers of those
> who are studying science are busily engaged in counting and weighing
> and measuring the details of things as they are, it would seem that to
> open a new field of research all that is necessary is to commence in
> that area also these same operations. "
>
> " Yet the obstinate fact remains that before even observation can
> become scientific there must be a science, at least in the form of
> hypotheses.  This is most eminently true of librarianship.  There can
> be no search until the searcher has decided what he shall look for.
> And this must have a scientific importance. "  Pierce Butler (orig
> pubd 1933)  Chapter 5: Practical considerations (Section) II  - from
> The Gospel of Scholarship, JV Richardson Jr, pp. 234-6 Appendix E
> (1992: Scarecrow Press)
>
> -----------------
> On 4/6/11, [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 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
>>
> ----------------------------
> Karen Weaver, MLS, Electronic Resources Statistician, Duquesne
> University, Gumberg Library, Pittsburgh PA email: [log in to unmask] /
> Gmail: [log in to unmask]
>
>

UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F
DISCLAIMER: This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain confidential information.
If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or
attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete
this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the
sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of the University of Technology Sydney.
Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.

Think. Green. Do.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.