Theory Building: A Proposed Strategy
for Reshaping Our Approach

California State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Latest update: December 29, 1999
Faculty on the Site.

As we approach the new millennium many of us suspect that many modernist critiques of postmodernism will prove valid: instead of a sudden rupture with the past, we will probably find incremental change that builds upon the strengths of the past and looks only slowly to self-reflexive criticism of the existing body of authority (See Calhoun, Critical Theory). Therein lies the essence of this paper: even though we may not be able to agree on whether we call the change rupture, or whether metanarratives should or should not play a role, at least we are aware of the kinds of choices we need to make and should be able to tolerate the ambiguity of allowing others different choices. We have chosen to focus on theory building and how it may be expanded to include a broader range of scholars, which may return to theory building the power its advocates once envisioned (Cite Theory Building text).

Review Blalock's frustration that "today's students" aren't smart enough, disciplined enough, and look at other explanations. The context of their world is different. They will not be offered jobs that bring with them the luxury of time and study once afforded. The Queens college conference on bias in education: the Stanford study on elite/ working class doctoral preparation. It is a mistake to assume that any of our worlds, elite or working class, remain the same as they were two decades ago.

Source: Theory building - have it, but have to find it. Collection on direction of theory building.

Some, like Habermas, will build on the modern, still seek some form of universalism. Others, like Foucault, will reject any metanarrative and seek tolerance for a multiplicity of perspectives. Falzon, in Foucault and Social Dialogue: Beyond Fragmentation, 1998, Routledge, suggests that our choices need not be between such extremes. He finds an alternate way of reading Foucault that offers dialogue as an alternative.

Intertextuality, contrary to the debates (Cite Fox, and Dassbach), has been with us for a long time. We used to call it footnotes, a review of the literature, referencing, and other simpler names. But we have always recognized that theory and research did not end with the individual researcher's perceptions and perspectives. We have long expected scholars to take other views into account. Only with the arrogance of positivism did we formalize approaches that excluded others, as though some had been proven "true." Science has long acknowledged its uncertainties, and the best science has always remained open to new knowledge.

Approaches such as Fox's have merely come to recognize that we are leaving some important information out; we are censoring ourselves before the fact. The fear that self censorship would discourage free speech and thought has been a part of First Amendment concerns. Our tendency has been to use several criteria for the self-censorship we use in the academy:

1. Traditional Publication Material

   1. We expect cited materials to be published. References largely unpublished would be questionable as authority.

   2. Reinhardt, Feminist Methodology, encounters the dilemma of feminist research and writings that had no forum when their approach did not match that of the publishing journals.

   3. Fox's example is of notes he never published because they did not fit the image presentation he thought appropriate for dissertation and publication. Yet, in retrospect, he realized that his notes provided an important perspective on the observations that were published. ( Fox)

More to come . . .

Rest of paper covers experiences of authors at two state universities, thousands of miles apart. They deal with intertextuality that illustrates the role of reflexive research within the academy on the problems of (1) understanding the effects of changing technology, (2) changing patterns of collegiality and collaboration in non-elite university programs, (3) changing patterns of measuring learning at a meaningful level in midst of technology and knowledge explosion changes, and (4) changing patterns of ethics and integrity, as seen by both students and teachers given exploding technology and information.