July 10…The Roles of Theory in Educational Research
What light have the authors in
Anyon shed on the issue of how theory should operate in our empirical research
projects? Are there any new confusions that have sprung up in the wake of
reading this book?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8s9t5wvt0vc4jac/EDUS%20703%20Perez%20Podcast_mixdown.aac?dl=0
ReplyDeleteAshlee Lester:
ReplyDeleteThe authors in Anyon approach theory in their work very differently than I am accustomed to in the world of educational psychology. Typically when I read articles in the Ed. Psych field there is not as explicit of a discussion about the theories being used to analyze the data. Theories are often mentioned in the introduction / literature review and again in the discussion. However, the results sections are written as if they are devoid of theory. Initially, I was jarred by the explicit use of theory in the data analysis presented in the Anyon book. However, I think this book does a good job of encouraging us to be more explicit about how pre-existing theory shapes our research, and not just how our research fits into or extends theory. It does however, cause me to question how to maintain an appropriate level of objectivity when analyzing data. I think there is a balance to be found. In her chapter, Kathleen Nolan suggests that this is an iterative or cyclical process in which you "visit theory, enter the field, revisit theory and rethink the field" (p. 53). This seems like a logical way to keep the balance between what theory and your data suggest.
Melissa L:
DeleteThe case is somewhat the same in Higher Ed. There are a lot of quantitative studies in the field, but they often suffer from a lack of application of theory. Theory often takes a on a very nuanced form in quantitative research in higher ed research. In some cases, the research does not even mention the theory behind it and the reader has to draw their own connections between practice and theory. I think it is interesting since so many PhD programs emphasize the importance of theory and philosophy. I remember that this was the case even when I did my Master's, where the professors actually included some theory in their classes. There was however, a strong emphasis on Constructivism since Yvonna Lincoln was is there.
Kathleen Nolan's suggestion also jumped out at me. It makes perfect sense, but I wonder how common this practice is. New researchers may feel apprehensive about "rethinking the field" openly because they don't want to rock the boat. Established researchers may feel like they have proved themselves and are more willing to rethink the field, but I wonder how many actually feel the need to venture out of their established comfort zones.
Jen U.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading the explicit use of theories in Anyon's book. I have read a number of feminist and critical theory qualitative studies for other projects, and they read very much like the chapters in this book. Unfortunately, I have generally only seen those types of articles when looking for critiques of long-standing policies, beliefs, or practices. I agree that theory should be part of every part of a research study, even if it is not written about. In 710, we talked about the importance of using theory to guide analysis related decisions - what questions to ask, what tests to run, how to interpret results, etc. The critical theorist and constructivist in me also believes that we are drawing on theories and epistemologies (in the form of assumptions, worldviews, etc.) in research even when we don't realize it. I would much rather a researcher be explicit about the theories being used, and how they relate to the data (whether quantitative or qualitative), than not discuss it at all. If a researcher is not explicit, then I have to guess and interpret it through my own unchecked assumptions. This is, of course, much easier said that done and I am certainly not at that point in my own research or writing. Writing explicitly about theory throughout a research project can be confusing to the reader (which happened to me in several of the chapters, including the queer theory one that I presented on). The author runs the risk of being too complicated or drawing too much on knowledge that is not broadly known. So for that, I think the Anyon book was helpful in helping me think about how to communicate theory in my research, and how not to.
Shannon
DeleteI've had a very similar experience, encountering theoretical articles and research studies in separate articles, but rarely seeing the two explicitly come together the way they do in Anyon. Most work in my field uses theoretical frameworks, which serve as more a summary than deep analysis of a theory. Like Ashlee mentioned, I think this helps set up a line of objective reasoning in data analysis, but I do think there's room for theories to be reconceptualized when the work is finished.
Virginia here:
ReplyDeleteThe authors in Anyon's book use theory in different ways, and I think Michelle Fine at the end does a nice job of summing it up. She writes that theory is used three ways: 1. conceptually, by relying on a certain one to help interpret data, 2. by informing your methodology, to figure out where to find the data, and 3. in epistemological reversals, using theory to ask the question. Her article really helped me to understand the various ways scholars use theory and the value of being explicit and mindful when using theory to inform scholarship. In my research, theory is used often and I think I certainly have more of an appreciation for it now. However, I am still concerned about getting to the point of being knowledgeable and confident enough to write about it in my work. I'm sure it just takes time.
I’ll be honest, my use of theory to date has been far less ambiguous than how many within Anyon have presented. That said, the use of theory, especially in interpreting findings and placing them within a broader context, is vital to the scientific process. I do think, however, that joining one’s work in a theoretical domain with others in the same domain takes time and is less clear than anything. By that, the speed at which publishing takes and the barriers it assumes is less inviting to actually making speedy scientific progress than we presume.
ReplyDeleteAs an aside, it still blows my mind that publishers still exist, domain space is all but close to being free and we have so many professional organizations that require dues and include arguably the finest researchers in the world, why cant they peer review. It is, at best, antiquated. #opensource
Theory, especially how Anyon has presented it, is vital, but it cannot and should not be everything acknowledged or interpreted.
This is Morgan DeBusk-Lane... which is not a robot.
DeleteJen G.
ReplyDeleteIn the discipline of sport management theory and application of theory is PREACHED. Since sport management is a fairly new discipline (1985) in comparison to many established disciplines scholars in the field talk about the importance of being explicit with theory and also how it is intertwined and can be used in the context of sport. More recently, a huge push in the legitimization in the field is to create sport specific theory rather than to continue to barrow from sister fields such as business management, organizational development, and the social sciences. The future of sport management and its discipline many scholars thinks depends on this and to be able to push through barriers of skepticism on why sport management is unique enough to be established as its own discipline and body of study.
Hannah
ReplyDeleteMuch like Jen's post, the application of theory is very prevalent in art education. I think in some ways, theory is what modernizes the age old practice of art education. In it's conception, art education was based upon it's meditative factors as well as the skillsets necessary for artists. While art can still be beneficial in those ways, the incorporation of theory takes advantage of the communicative properties of art and uses it as a tool to encourage conversations of topics that are important and relevant to our students.