Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - The Academic Nonsense of "Theoretical Framework"

Moses:

In a revised version, best to remove words such as "silly" and "stupid." In some circles, they will dismiss the message and the messenger. Language is culture-bound and it can encroach upon the way a serious message is received.

TF

 

From: dialogue <usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com> on behalf of moses <meochonu@gmail.com>
Reply-To: dialogue <usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com>
Date: Friday, June 28, 2019 at 9:47 AM
To: dialogue <usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - The Academic Nonsense of "Theoretical Framework"

 

15 Clarifications and Further Thoughts on the Tyranny of the "Theoretical Framework" Requirement in Nigerian Universities

 

by Moses E. Ochonu

 

 

Note: I am posting this on Facebook, so I apologize if it comes across as condescending. I wrote this primarily for my Nigerian graduate students and junior faculty mentees on Facebook and other forums. I don't mean to be condescending to the esteemed members of this forum.

 

 

I am not making a general statement about the importance or place of theory in academic research. The key phrases are "as practiced in Nigeria" and "in Nigerian universities." I have seen this problem myself when reading Nigerian dissertations as part of my own research and as part of my external examination for Nigerian universities. Here are the problems:

 

1. Students are required to adopt a theoretical framework for the research with no justification for why it is necessary or suitable for their topic or research questions.

 

2. In MOST cases, the choice of theory is arbitrary, a perfunctory exercise with no correlation to the empirical and analytical aspects of the research in question. It can be quite jarring and awkward to encounter this dissonance.

 

3. In most cases, the theoretical framework is simply an unquestioning appropriation of an existing theory (or theories), instead of a critical engagement with it (them) in light of the insights from the current research. It is like putting a gown on a body that it does not fit but putting it on it anyway without bothering to explain why.

 

4. In MOST cases, the so-called theoretical framework is an entire chapter, sometimes the longest chapter in the dissertation, drowning out what, if any, original research and analysis exists in the work.

 

5. In MOST cases, the separate "theoretical framework" chapter or section is redundant and unnecessary because the theoretical discussion can be integrated into the introduction and conclusion or even the literature review section. So the problem is both a structural and epistemological one. In practical terms, it also awkwardly breaks the coherence of the text, hurting its readability.

 

6. In MOST cases, because the "theoretical framework" is a requirement, students simply plagiarize theories previously adopted by others or their supervisors or that they found randomly through internet searches. They don't even bother to reinterpret the theory in their own words and instead simply reproduce the original theoretical postulation. This is because they don't even understand the theory let alone its relation to their research. They are simply fulfilling a requirement, without which they will not be allowed to defend their dissertation or graduate.

 

7. All topics do not lend themselves to theorization to the same degree, so requiring all dissertating students to have a theoretical framework is silly. If a work has a strong data/empirical base, is rigorously analyzed, and has a coherent, original argument (or a set of arguments) that is carried through the dissertation, that should suffice. Theory should not be forced on a work simply because you want to make it appear more serious or consequential. Whether the work employs a deductive or inductive approach (moving from the general or axiomatic to the specific or the other way around), rigor and originality are paramount and should trump an artificial, forced theory requirement.

 

8. All disciplines are not equally theory-inclined. In my field of history for instance, we treasure a solid original research. We treasure a great analysis. We treasure the formulation and demonstration of a compelling argument. All of these do not have to conduce to theorization, and we don't require it. If a historian feels like theorizing, they may do so but first, they cannot put the theory before the analysis or let it prejudice the analysis, and second, they cannot expect that a theory, no matter how sexy, can make up for bad data, research, analysis, and argumentation.

 

9. Along those lines, In MOST cases, as practiced in Nigeria, there is no original theorization (and of course no critique of existing theories), which defeats the logic of theoretical scholarship.

 

10. The title "theoretical framework" is stifling of original research and original theorization in the Nigerian context because it is an alibi to cover a multitude of scholarly sins. But beyond that, because the adopted "theoretical framework" is considered paradigmatic and infallible (the final word as it were), it prevents or silences any original theoretical contributions the student's work may throw up. If a work has theoretical implications and original theoretical insights, students should be encouraged to highlight them without being hamstrung by an arbitrarily borrowed "theoretical framework."

 

11. If a work has theoretical dimensions or potentials, titles such as "theoretical reflections" or "theoretical insights" or similar ones are more appropriate, for they give the student the permission and flexibility to highlight and boldly showcase the theories or theoretical insights from their work. The rigid and imposed category of "theoretical framework" undermines original theorization. Nigerian academics and students tend to understand "framework" as a box or container that houses their research work, a restrictive space from which their work should not and cannot deviate. "Theoretical framework" is thus counterproductive and restrictive. 

 

12. Requiring a definitive "theoretical framework" at the proposal stage, that is, prior to fieldwork or archival work or engagement with text (depending on the discipline and methodology) constrains the work and predetermines its trajectory. It also diminishes the value of discovery in research, analysis, and argument since a supposedly theoretical paradigm is assumed to supersede whatever insights or theories the data or analysis throws up.

 

13. In MOST cases, the theoretical framework adopted has two egregious problems: it is outmoded/outdated and it is Eurocentric, explaining a Euro-American phenomena or experience. In some cases the theory is even informed by racist assumptions, conjectures, research, and arguments. I often shake my head when I read dissertations and articles written by Nigerian students and scholars that quote or uncritically adopt theories propounded in the 1940s and 1950s by white people, most of whom are dead and may have been infected by the prejudices of their times. As a student of social theory myself, I know that no respectable academics cite those theories today as they are considered obsolete and as new theoretical approaches have supplanted them. If you must adopt a theoretical framework (I prefer critical engagement with relevant theories), at least pick out current theories with purchase in the global academy and in your specific field today. I also shake my head when I see Nigerian scholars citing theories whose racist genealogies have already been critiqued to death.

 

14. In MOST cases, even when the adopted "theoretical framework" is not racist, because it is set in a Euro-American or other foreign contexts, it bears little relevance to our African realities and has the capacity to overdetermine or even colonize the illumination of such realities. The work of decolonizing African knowledge includes theorizing smartly from the right premise and using the tools of scholarly skepticism and criticism to engage theories with experiential, empirical, and scholarly roots elsewhere.

 

15. A blanket, imposed, rigidly enforced requirement for all students research projects to have a theoretical framework is both stupid and counterproductive, but if a particular research topic lends itself to theorization and theoretical engagement, we have many African theorists in the African humanities and humanistic social sciences to look to: Achille Mbembe, VY Mudimbe, Kwame Anthony Appiah, Archie Mafeje, Oyeronke Oyewumni, Ify Amadiume, Kwesi Wiredu, Nimi Wariboko, Mahmoud Mamdani, Ato Quayson, etc. If we prefer dead theorists, there are also many: Cheikh Anta Diop, Samir Amin, Magema Fuze, Kwame Nkrumah, Julius Nyerere, Frantz Fanon, etc.

 

 

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 9:38 PM Ogedi Ohajekwe <gedyged@gmail.com> wrote:

In it's simplest form, someone wakes up in the morning and wants to do or does not want to do X.

The question is why do or why not do X?.

Someone wakes up in the morning dresses up and goes out. 

For what reason? 

Generally, there is a reason for the action. May range from just going out to get fresh air, to 'clear one's mind', or to go to work.

This is the same as with almost all, but particularly academic endeavors.

Hence, theoretical framework, the provisional opinion without sufficient evidence for proof, and yes one's insight as to why an endeavor is worth undertaking.

All said and done, the result of the day's activity may or may not be the same, and does not need to be the same as to why the endeavor was started at the beginning of the day.

The results may actually be directly opposite to the assumed theoretical framework.

All that is required is that there is good reasoning behind embarking on the endeavor, that there are good materials and methods for data collection, and good interpretation of the data. 

The theoretical framework is the reason one decided to start the search or research, it does not have to be the same (and most of the times, it is not) as the result of the search or research.

Regarding history in particular, new books are still being written about Washington, Lincoln and the assassination of JFK.

 Each new book tries very hard to tell why they set out to write the new book despite the deluge of information on the topics-alias theoretical framework.

Discoveries made by chance or accident are obviously outside the realms of planned academic search or research.

On Jun 27, 2019, at 7:01 PM, OLAYINKA AGBETUYI <yagbetuyi@hotmail.com> wrote:

I think Moses and I did not say theory is not important at all but your inclusive ALL seems to be the problem here.  Theories are needed when you want to universal's but you dont have to say great intellectuals are only those invoking great theories. That is called begging the question in logic. Its inductive and not analytical and its also referred to as fallacy of hasty generalization.

 

I love theory when irs needed particularly to displace outmoded theory as Im doing currently in music

 

OAA

 

 

 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

 

 

-------- Original message --------

From: 'Biko Agozino' via USA Africa Dialogue Series <usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com>

Date: 27/06/2019 23:43 (GMT+00:00)

To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - The Academic Nonsense of "Theoretical Framework"

 

'Requiring students to have a theoretical framework even before they've done the research or analyzed their data prejudges the work and imposes a predetermined direction and outcome on the dissertation. It amounts to doing scholarship backwards.'

 

Moses is referring to the logic of research which has two equally valid variants: Inductive logic and deductive logic. Historians tend to go from the specific details of data to a general conclusion in accordance with inductive logic (though the great Walter Rodney adopted a theoretical framework to a telling effect). Sociologists tend to go from the general theoretical foundations to specific data that may reject, affirm or modify the framework after testing it. 

 

This is a core part of research methodology - you will have to decide with scholarly reasons why you think that the inductive or the deductive logic is more suitable to the task of filling the gaps that you found in existing knowledge during the literature review. You could say that you want to test a particular theoretical framework (and it does not have to be one favored by dead white men) or you could choose to follow grounded theory by building a theoretical conclusion from the evidence that you find on the ground the way anthropologists and ethnographers tend to do.

 

Theory is crucial to all research and the neglect of theory is part of the reasons why a lot of great minds end up in relative anonymity. All the great minds in every field are almost invariably theorists. African students must be encouraged to subject the existing theoretical frameworks to merciless critique and go on to develop their own original theories in order to leave their footprints on the sand of intellectual history. Even in history, those who go beyond empiricism and develop a theoretical framework or test some such frameworks are the top historians. 

 

The question is, what theoretical contributions have Africans made in their fields or are they still playing the role of the native informant?

 

Biko

 

On Thursday, 27 June 2019, 16:54:46 GMT-4, OLAYINKA AGBETUYI <yagbetuyi@hotmail.com> wrote:

 

 

Addendum.

 

The other side of the story is I let it slip that I would not be continuing with them anyway and would finish the rest of my studies in the US.  In response to which it was decided that I be graded relatively low and that no one should provide a useful reference for me so that if I wanted to pursue further graduate studies Ill be forced on my knees crawling back to them begging.  Of course I did no such thing preferring to start all over again at Masters level.  That was part of what I meant when I ince wrote here that if members of the intelligentsia decide to be evil they are harder to catch in view of their superior intelligence used to mask the evil.

 

At a point in time the British intelligence MI6 was even involved with passports disappearing in transit and at the passport office third world styke.

 

Anyways I supervised a final year history project in which the theory was again given within which the topic was to be written so as you correctly argued it stifles individual response.

 

OAA

 

 

 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

 

 

-------- Original message --------

From: Moses Ebe Ochonu <meochonu@gmail.com>

Date: 27/06/2019 14:21 (GMT+00:00)

To: USAAfricaDialogue <USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com>

Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - The Academic Nonsense of "Theoretical Framework"

 

This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (meochonu@gmail.com) Add cleanup rule | More info

The Academic Nonsense Called "Theoretical Framework" in Nigerian Universities

 

By Moses E. Ochonu

 

Note: I wrote this reflection last night as a Facebook update in the aftermath of a vibrant discussion in a seminar I gave yesterday to advanced graduate students, postdoctoral scholars, and junior faculty at the ongoing Lagos Studies Conference at the University of Lagos. We covered several topics but this was by far the most animated and vexing issue for the participants. There is outrage out there against silly regimentations that lack intellectual logic and are only grounded in the silly bureaucratic justification of homogenization, control, and conformity. This is a more polished version of what I told the participants and I have sent it to them as an email attachment.

 

 

Why do Nigerian universities require all academic dissertations in the social sciences and humanities to include a section called "theoretical framework"? There is no logic or compelling scholarly reason other than the inexplicable Nigerian desire for regimentation, uniformity, and unnecessary complication. 

 

And of course, there is the ego and procedural obsession factor: they made us do this, so now that we're professors, our students have to do it too.

 

The fetishization of the "theoretical framework" is a recent development in Nigerian universities. When I was an undergraduate, there was no such blanket requirement. It is lazy and counterproductive, a poor, foolish, and misguided attempt to copy theoretical trends in the Western academy. This mimicry completely and fundamentally misunderstands the theoretical turn in global humanities and social science scholarship, not to mention the point of theorization in the first place.

 

First of all, what is the point of requiring "theoretical framework" of everyone in the social science and humanities as if all topical explorations have to have theoretical endpoints? Some topics, by their nature, lend themselves to theoretical explorations and reflections. Others don't and that's okay. As long as the scholarship is rigorous and has a structuring set of arguments that are borne out by the data, it is fine.

 

Not all works have to be theoretically informed or make theoretical contributions. In historical scholarship for instance, a good narrative that is framed in a sound argument is what we're looking for, not forced theoretical discussions.

 

There are disciplinary differences that make the blanket imposition of the theoretical framework requirement silly. For some disciplines, theory and theoretical framing are integral to their practice. For others, that is not the case. Literary scholarship, for instance, may be more theoretical than other fields. While requiring students in literary studies to write in the theoretical vocabulary of the field or to engage with consequential theoretical conversations of the field or at least demonstrate some familiarity with these conversations, requiring a history and education student to do the same is stupid.

 

And even in the theory-inclined fields, not all topics are theory-laden or require theoretical explorations or conclusions.

 

Secondly, theory can never be imposed or should never be imposed. That produces bad scholarship. Requiring students to have a theoretical framework even before they've done the research or analyzed their data prejudges the work and imposes a predetermined direction and outcome on the dissertation. It amounts to doing scholarship backwards. It stifles scholarly innovation and originality. More tragically, requiring a theoretical framework upfront is bad scholarly practice because it disrespects the data and the analysis/arguments that the data supports.

 

Thirdly, imposing the "theoretical framework" requirement reverses the proper order of the empirical/theoretical dyad. Even in scholarship that lends itself to theoretical reflection and arguments, such theories emanate from the work, from a rigorous distillation of the theoretical implications and insights of the analysis. Imposing theory by choosing some random theory of some random (probably dead) white person defeats the purpose and silences the potential theoretical contributions of the dissertation.

 

It is during the process of data analysis and the development of the work's arguments and insights that its theoretical implications and its connections to or divergence from existing theoretical postulations becomes clear, giving the scholar a clear entry point to engage critically with the existing theoretical literature and to highlight the theoretical contributions and insights of the work in relation to existing theories. Proper theorizing flows from compelling analysis of data, not the other way round. I don't understand why a student is required to adopt a so-called theoretical framework ab initio, before the research is done, before the analyses are complete — before the work's arguments and insights are fully collated and distilled into a set of disciplined postulations on knowledge aka theories. 

 

If a topic has theoretical dimensions, why not simply, as a supervisor, encourage the student to 1) be conscious of the theoretical implications and insights, and 2) highlight these theoretical interventions? Why is a "theoretical framework" section needed? And if you must carve out a section, why not title it "theoretical insights" or "theoretical reflections" or some other similarly flexible and less restrictive category? Doing so gives the student the leeway, flexibility, and incentive to actually reflect on and then highlight the work's theoretical insights (in relation to other theories) instead of blindly dropping the names of some white theorists, whose theories may or may not relate to his work, just to fulfill the requirement of having a so-called theoretical framework? Why do you have to require an arbitrary, mechanical section on theoretical framework?

 

The result of the current requirement in Nigerian universities is that students who have theoretical statements to make through their work cannot do so because the "theoretical framework" requirement merely demands a mechanical homage to existing theories and neither produces a critical assessment of or engagement with such theories nor a powerful enunciation of the work's theoretical takeaways. As practiced in Nigeria, the blanket theoretical framework requirement is nothing more than an annoying, one-size-fits-all name dropping exercise that destroys a dissertation's originality by imposing an awkward theory on it. 

 

And, by the way, every work has theory that is either explicit or implicit, whether the author chooses to highlight them or not. A perceptive reader can identify and grasp the theoretical implications and insights even without a separate, demarcated "theory" section. Sometimes the theory is implied in the analysis can be seen, so requiring a section/chapter dedicated to announcing the work's "theory" is redundant and infantilizes the reader.

 

The "theoretical framework" requirement also makes a dissertation difficult to read as the transition from the work's findings and contentions to the "theoretical framework" is often forced, abrupt, and jarring.

 

In its Nigerian iteration, the tyranny of the theoretical framework requirement does nothing but theoretically restrict the work, putting its arguments and theoretical insights in the shadow of some Euro-American theories with little or no relevance to the work in question or to our African realities and phenomena.

 

Nigeria has so much to offer the world of theory and African scholarship is dripping with potential theoretical contributions, but the arbitrary imposition of a "theoretical framework" requirement kills off or buries such original theoretical contributions by imposing a prepackaged, usually foreign, theory on a work that is chocked full of its own theoretical insights — insights that, if properly distilled and highlighted to stand on their own confident African legs, can revise, challenge, or deepen existing Euro-American theories.

 

 

 

--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/CAAHJfPqPjxPhCZZ4KPA0y8oeJQbDr%2BxR2PBCWzKnevwOhBioCQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/VI1PR04MB44933B35BD0E37389ED307CBA6FD0%40VI1PR04MB4493.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/1656054581.1707763.1561675005931%40mail.yahoo.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/VI1PR04MB4493EA2F6C2926150753E695A6FD0%40VI1PR04MB4493.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/E58F6CAD-ECAC-479C-ADED-E44CEE0F0DE7%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/CAAHJfPpb5mVads74T1QECi5D4jZ%3Do77UW51jtrpNEVhcBC90fA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

This message is from an external sender. Learn more about why this matters.