Sunday, October 5, 2008

How important is theory/are theories in our academic work? Why are they/aren't they important? Is it important for us to be familiar with theories t

Theory is obviously important in academic work. Or at least...the concepts behind the theories are important. I feel though, that people tend to naturally drift into theories. For the sake of articles and job interviews for academia, it helps to be able to define one's own theoretical slant. I am not sure if missing a theory course, however, would seriously deter anyone from exploring a certain topic. I was speaking to a professor the other day, who will remain nameless, and he/she does not think theory courses were that applicable to his/her work.

Theory almost seems to be an outdated practice. Most current scholarship tends to focus on a survey of scholarly literature on their topic rather than focus on differing theoretical practices. Certainly, there is a place in some arguments for theoretical debate, but today it seems like much of the criticism of articles focuses on the validity of the argument based on evidence, not on the theoretical framework.

For pedagogy, it might be more helpful to understand theory. Many of us are thrown into the teaching profession with little to no knowledge of pedagogical theory. I anticipate that I will probably glance back at some of these articles from class in the future and try to define my teaching style or try to find different ideas for teaching effectively.

All this being said, I don't think theory should be as canonical as it is. Leave it for the Philosophy or Psychology department.

1 comment:

Ken Baake said...

Lorna writes: "Certainly, there is a place in some arguments for theoretical debate, but today it seems like much of the criticism of articles focuses on the validity of the argument based on evidence, not on the theoretical framework."

I wonder if you are referring to articles in composition, literature, or another field. I would be interested in reading more how you distinguish "theoretical framework" from a "valid argument based on evidence." Would the former be intuitive postulation of cause and effect, and the latter empirical. It seems that both theory and argument with evidence would entail some kinds of cause and effect relationships, so I wonder how they might differ.