Abstract
While theory plays a variety of roles in forming the central argument of an academic work, it is often assigned a secondary status to that of research methods. The following paper focuses specifically on the benefits for psychology research students in engaging with the capacity of theory to enhance the coherence and originality of their academic works (such as theses or dissertations). Barriers to engagement with theory are identified and contributory factors discussed. General trends in academic environments are seen to play an important part in why many students view theory as difficult, unnecessary, and unconnected with the real world. The article then develops an account for understanding the dynamic and multilayered ways in which theory contributes to research enquiries. A framework involving six different layers of theory is described along with a model for understanding how these layers interact and the order in which they might be best addressed. The paper also considers some of the complications between these layers and possible changes to learning environments in psychology that could promote stronger involvement with theory.
Theory development is a critical, but often overlooked, part in assembling the central argument of a doctoral, masters, or honors thesis/dissertation—referred to here, collectively as “a thesis.” Elements of theory permeate most aspects of a thesis. Their presence is discernible both at the higher or more general and abstract levels of “grand theory” and “ideology” (as in evolutionary theory and Marxism) as well as in the more specific task of making sense of the findings (e.g., one group ranking higher than another group). The following linked scenarios illustrate the importance of theory development to a thesis:
Joseph can feel the muscles in his chest tightening as he tries to work out how to pull the various threads of his PhD research in psychology together into written form. He reads over some fragments. He recalls how eager he had been at the beginning to get on with data collection, but now, as he flips through his files, he is unsure of how to bring it all together. He had been so careful with how he conducted his research: he followed the rules to the letter and had adopted appropriate, cutting-edge methods without any sloppy measurement and certainly no fudging of results. But, as he scans his results, he wonders whether others have covered this all before; surely there is nothing new here? And yet, maybe there is something new in the way he is pulling it together? Its originality might lie less in the individual bits and more in the way they are assembled. How might he thread together these various strands in a way that is clearly original? For this he needs something else; some sort of conceptual framework that would allow him to combine the pieces of evidence in a way that sheds light on the meaning of his material from a different angle.
What is missing for Joseph is some form of conceptual framework that would enable him to combine his various bits of evidence into a novel understanding. His concerns regarding originality are matched by his thesis supervisor, Dana, who a year later begins reading through his first complete draft.
It is late in the evening and Dana is weary from a busy day of teaching. She struggles to keep focused but feels obliged to plough on because she had promised Joseph feedback the next day. Ah, but reading it is such heavy weather. All the right bits are there: a clear question, a well-organized literature review, an appropriate method, a solid outline of his results… but something is definitely missing. The various sections of his draft appear to hang as separate, disconnected parts and it is difficult working out its central thrust. Something else is needed for it to come together into some form of unified whole. She gazes blankly across the room. Perhaps his early reluctance to discuss theory had blocked his progress later.
Dana is tempted to explore whether backfilling theoretical elements into his work could rescue its coherence, but she is uncertain how these might be achieved so late in the process. The thesis could end up appearing patched up and disorganized. Her worries are realized when nine months later Janice sits down to examine Joseph’s thesis.
Janice sighs as she unwraps the formidable looking document and begins slowly and carefully reading through the first three chapters. As she proceeds she can feel her heart sinking. She can clearly recall all the worries and challenges she experienced when writing her own PhD and, accordingly, she takes such examinations very seriously. And yet, out of the five theses she had examined over the last couple of years, she has only read one that was engaging and interesting. With some dismay she struggles with the ponderous, almost formulaic way in which the work is composed. The background, the research question, the methodology; they are all presented without any clear attempt to acknowledge and reflect on basic assumptions. The writer offers no evidence of having the capacity to stand back and critique how he has conducted his research.
Joseph, Dana, and Janice are each grappling with the absence of particular qualities that mark a thesis as having academic merit. Joseph sees the need for theory in grounding the originality and creativity in his work; Dana sees the need for coherence in bringing the various parts together and Janice sees the need for critical reflections regarding underlying assumptions. They each have a nagging sense that the absence of these three vital qualities—or the three “Cs,” creativity, coherence, and criticism—is a result of insufficient attention to conceptual development. Joseph’s valuable efforts had been undermined by his reluctance to engage in theory.
Reluctance with theory
Joseph is not alone in his avoidance of theory. Such reluctance is commonplace in many current academic environments, including psychology, where an interest in theory is often relegated to hypothesis formation (Teo, 2005). This constricted view misses out on the rich and varied ways that theory can contribute to research initiatives. But, before exploring this potential, it is worth considering some of the reasons why students such as Joseph might be reluctant to engage in theorizing. These can be broadly grouped under the following three headings:
Method matters more than theory
The Age of Enlightenment that emerged in 18th century Europe brought to the fore the use of rigorous empirical methods as the ultimate arbiter of knowledge and discovery (Outram, 1995). A theory, of whatever form and at whatever level, does not deserve serious consideration until its main contentions are backed up by carefully replicated observation (Friedman, 1999). Centuries of speculation had yielded little that was solid and useful and enlightenment scientists were determined to place enquiry on a firmer footing. A deep suspicion of theory emerged and interests in speculation were increasingly subject to control and constraint (Olson, 2008). Indeed, the skills of doing theory were neglected to a point where the nature and origins of an idea were of little consequence so long as correct methods were being applied. Following this lead, students were increasingly persuaded that if they get their methods right whatever theory is needed will fall naturally into place.
Nonetheless, over the last 50 years, this theory-neutral interpretation of science has attracted heavy and sustained criticism (Feyerabend, 1976; Hanson, 1973; Smith, 2005). Critics have singled out psychology as being particularly prone to promoting method over theory (Kitzinger, 1991; Langenhove, 1995; Looren de Jong, 2010; Wallach & Wallach, 1998). At the heart of these criticisms lies the claim that empirical methods do not sit in theory-free vacuum; on the contrary, they are surrounded by layers of assumptions that call on a wide range of theories.
Theory is disconnected from real life
Alongside the dichotomy between theory and method sits another split between theory and what some might refer to as the “real world.” Enlightenment science can be seen as a reaction to the speculative theorizing that characterized classical and medieval science (Burns, 2003). This is epitomized in the negative image of the “natural philosopher”; a wise old man sitting by the fire in his armchair dreaming up a raft of untested and untestable ideas with little prospect of deriving anything useful for everyday challenges. This image contrasts with the dogged scientist—a Marie Curie or a Max Planck—who devoted their lives to the pursuit of crucial observations. Hard data is what it is about, and hard data is collected from hard work in a hard world. The virtuous scientist leaves behind the world of ivory tower speculation and gets his or her hands dirty in the stubborn and grubby realities of true-life contexts (Daston & Lunbeck, 2011). Students like Joseph, picking up on these values, impatiently embark on what they consider the real work of a thesis project; that of getting the methods right and moving forward into data collection. But, as illustrated in the scenarios earlier, data has little value unless it is situated in a context of ideas and a central argument will struggle to form unless different aspects of theory receive ongoing attention.
Theory is too difficult
Despite the crucial contribution theory makes to creativity, coherence, and criticism, teaching programs, particularly those that favor enlightenment science, struggle to include content on theory at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels (Brookfield, 2005, 2011; McWilliam, 1993). Theory is either consigned a secondary role or viewed as belonging at very advanced levels of learning to which novices need to be inducted via a series of graduated exposures (Thomas, 2007). This is most notable in psychology where laboratory settings play a key role in impressing on undergraduates the central role of measurement, ratings, and other research methods (Duschl, Hamilton, & Grandy, 1990; Kvale, 1992; Rosenbaum & Valsiner, 2011). Following this lead, it is little wonder that students acquire a sense that doing theory is both hazardous and energy sapping. Reading theory is seen as requiring too much effort: too many big words, too much confusion, too many ideas that are difficult to access; one is too quickly immersed in an ocean of perplexing possibilities. Sure enough, with this as a backdrop, when students do venture into reading theory without support or guidance, they soon find it slow and heavy work. To avoid being sucked into this swirling vortex of complex and confusing ideas, it is far easier to either limit ideas to the research question or step away from theory altogether. But these perceptions are misplaced. With guidance, as students cross over the hump of unfamiliar terminology, they discover to their surprise that talking and reflecting about theory can be engaging and invigorating.
These attitudinal barriers discourage psychology students from engaging with what theory has to offer and, since theory plays an important role at different stages in the life-cycle of a dissertation project, the onus is on the academic environment to support students in developing comfort and familiarity with theory.
Zones and layers
The following will introduce the diverse role of theory in two interlinked steps. The first step looks at three general zones of activity and the second step refines these zones by identifying six more specific layers in which theory for a dissertation is active. Figure 1 identifies the three broad zones:
Three general zones of theory activity.
“Content antecedents” refer here to prior efforts at theory development with relevance to the central ideas that drive a research project. These ideas not only shape the research question but also provide a context for the general direction of an enquiry. Accordingly, content antecedents radiate back in time linking a project up with a broad array of conceptual influences. These can include ideas derived from the investigator’s recent efforts, those from current developments in the field, strands of thinking over the last decade, and the vital but diffuse influences from the distant history of ideas. For example, a project examining the cognitive processes for older people with mental rotation of people’s faces will draw on recent ideas on aging and the brain, ideas from similar studies over the last few years as well as incorporating ideas from a long history of using mental rotation as a means of studying cognitive processes (Dror & Kosslyn, 1994; Zacks, 2008). These influences combine together in setting the scene and the direction for what the investigation is about.
“Method antecedents” refer to prior efforts at theorizing which provide the assumptions underpinning how a particular piece of research will be conducted. As such, they have more to do with what is understood as acceptable practice in the conduct of an enquiry than what the enquiry is trying to achieve. For example, a national household survey on living standards might be setting out to explore the relationship between poverty and wellbeing, but the integrity of this type of investigation will be determined by key ingredients such as the precision of the stratified sampling frame and the quality of the standardized measures. In this case, straddled beneath and supporting these methods reverberates a prior history of theorizing that has laid out expectations for knowledge to be seen as objective, universal, replicable, and verifiable (Biemer & Lyberg, 2003; Tourangeau, Rips, & Rasinski, 2000).
The arrows between the two antecedent zones acknowledge how, for many projects, strong interactions can occur between content and method. For example, a researcher who makes use of feminist theory to make sense of the challenges for women in traditionally male dominated occupations might also incorporate feminist ideals into the research methods, such as the use of reflexive interview practices and open consultation (Fine, 1992; Reay, 1996). These antecedent zone interconnections will be explored more when looking at layer overlaps.
In between the content and method antecedents lies what the diagram refers to as an “emergent zone.” This is the space of originality and creativity; the space in which the input of prior ideas (above) and approaches to enquiry (below) mix, interact, and coalesce into new perspectives. Similar to the way new combinations of chemicals or new mixes of wine react unpredictably, the emergence of new theory can proceed in unpredictable directions and at unpredictable rates. When the antecedents are adequately engaged and when the enquirer is willing to let the process take its course, new ideas and new concepts are then highly likely to emerge.
Now, having roughly sketched out these three broad zones of activity, the following discussion refines these down further by dividing them into six layers with each layer calling on a different type of theorizing. When approached on their own these individual layers are unlikely to be productive, however, when they are approached in combination the interactions between these layers set the parameters for the environment in which the central ideas of the thesis can emerge. Three layers belong to the zone of content antecedents: “background theory,” “grand theory,” and “translational theory,” and two belong to the zone of method antecedents: “foundational theory” and “methodology.”
Layer 1: Background theory
When first formulating and tackling a research question, the student will seek out background theories. These theories are immediately accessible in the background literatures of the fields relevant to addressing the research question. For example, a research project focusing on aggressive behavior in sports teams could begin by looking at ideas and working hypotheses from intergroup research. Background theories refer to explanations that are already available; usually specific and detailed theories that provide a starting point for further enquiry. The guiding question for most projects can typically call on two or three different background literatures that offer up ideas that explain key relationships. Some of these ideas are likely to be more current and more influential than others but, in all likelihood, there will be suggestions for more than one way of tackling the problem. For example, a psychology student examining the relationship between fashion photography and eating disorders would need to become familiar with the relevant literatures from all three areas of media studies, clinical psychology, and feminist studies. Each of these separate literatures will throw up differing explanations of the relationship between eating patterns and how female bodies are depicted in magazines (Fingeret & Gleaves, 2004; Malson & Burns, 2009). Ideally this student should have a grasp of these well before enrolling for a dissertation project.
Layer 2: Grand theory
The origin of core ideas that contribute to a particular family of theories can usually be traced back to their origins in theories proposed by great thinkers from the past (Turner & Boyns, 2001). Each broad field of study will celebrate its earlier luminaries: in physics these include Newton, Planck, and Einstein, in psychology, Freud, Watson, and Piaget, in philosophy, Hume, Kant, and Wittgenstein, in sociology, Marx, Durkheim, and Weber, and so forth. Grand theories are notable both for their scale (hence the label “grand”) and for their enduring influence. For example, Freud’s concept of the “unconscious” has permeated not only into psychology but also into philosophy, literature, and social theory (Clarke, 2006). The range of available grand theories is vast and spans, from one extreme, the more empirically oriented frames (such as behaviorism, evolutionary theory, and relativity theory) to, at the other extreme, the more subjectively inclusive frames (such as post-colonial theory and existentialism). In between lies myriad other stimulating possibilities which comprise as diverse a mix as: big bangs, strings, and energy quantums; Hegelian dialectic, Marxism, and Neo-Marxism; structuralism, feminism, and psychoanalysis; empiricism, idealism, and rationalism, and so forth: the breadth and depth of possibilities is awe inspiring. While not every enquiry is compelled to explore its grand theory roots, a major enquiry, such as a PhD thesis, is vastly enriched when it tracks back to these origins.
Layer 3: Translational theory
In between the specificity of background theories and the expansiveness of grand theory lies an intermediate space in which translational theories—or “middle range theories” (Merton, 1968)—come into play. These form when theorists within a particular field adapt and translate the key ideas of grand theorists and make them relevant to the specific issues and challenges that crop up when pursuing their own areas of study. Such theories differ from background theory because they still call on a general theoretical frame and because they have not been focused down to address particular problems. For example, the translational theories of socio-biology involve transposing the survival logic of evolutionary theory onto making sense of social and cultural events. An enquiry focusing on risk-taking by young men might call on socio-biology to explain the survival value of such behavior and can do so without needing to explore Darwinian grand theory (Wilson, 1975; Wilson & Daly, 1985), but, as already mentioned, students choosing to limit their understanding of theory to the works of translational theorists risk missing out on a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the origins and the challenges belonging to that orientation.
Layer 4: Foundational theory
Foundational theories resemble grand theories in grounding the basic assumptions for knowledge-gathering enterprises but whereas grand theories shape key ideas, foundational theories shape the process by which enquiry is conducted. The French thinker Jean-Francois Lyotard (1924–1998) described foundational theory, or what he called “meta-narratives,” as overarching stories of purpose or grand quests that shape the direction of broad domains of human activity that include science, politics, and religion (Lyotard, 1979/1984). He also critiqued blind allegiance to these quests as constraining to plurality and diversity. He identified two foundational meta-narratives which have played a particularly strong role in European endeavors over the last 300 years (p. xxiv). (For a more detailed discussion of these foundational theories see Adams, Prescott, & Dixon, 2012.) First, the “progress” meta-narrative tells the story of how human advancement is achieved through the careful application of reason, precise observation, and measurement thereby enabling progressive steps towards the ultimate goal of an organized, enlightened, and humane society. This underpins many of the fundamental assumptions of empirical science such as belief in a singular immutable objective reality and the split between the mind and the outside world. These assumptions have dominated research in psychology over the last century. Second, Lyotard’s “emancipation” meta-narrative tells the story of human effort moving slowly but inexorably in the direction of a free, just, and open society. This emphasis on self-determination and empowerment has formed the basis for many emancipatory movements including socialism, feminism, post-colonialism, and civil rights.
While Lyotard limited his discussion largely to “progress” and “emancipation,” two further foundational theories are worth identifying, namely, “realization” and “critical theory.” “Realization” tells the story of commitment to practices directed at realizing the full potential of what it means to be authentically human. Such an orientation draws on a wide range of philosophical and religious traditions that have, in more recent times, led to the rise of various “psy-” sciences which include practices such as psychoanalysis, counseling, meditation, and self-awareness (as identified and critiqued by Rose, 1991). Finally, “critical theory” draws on assumptions regarding the complex, layered, and interactional nature of understanding and truth. It has spawned a dynamic range of theoretical positions under the broad umbrella of post-structuralism, which includes movements such as constructivism, post-structuralism, and pluralism (Gergen, 1990; Teo, 2009).
Layer 5: Methodology
Methodologies—as distinct from “methods”—draw on foundational theories in setting the parameters for how a research question should be tackled and settled; in other words, they determine the assumptions that underpin the conduct of an enquiry. For example, enquiry into youth cannabis use involves a range of questions: How many are using? What problems are they having? How is cannabis valued in youth culture? The decision on which question to tackle will determine the type of research methods and, accordingly, the type of methodological assumptions that will be taken on. For example, if the question relates to how many young people are smoking cannabis, the methodological base is likely to draw on post-positivist assumptions which dictate the way a survey study should be conducted (the use of stratified samples, standardized questionnaires, etc.). Alternatively, if the question relates to the meanings and values of cannabis use, the methodological assumptions are likely to shift more towards constructivist approaches which allow for a more open-ended and reflexive form of enquiry.
The full range of possible methodologies can be viewed as a continuum—or a spectrum—of possibilities stretching at one end from the more realist and objectivist assumptions of logical positivism to, at the other end, the more idealist and constructivist assumptions of phenomenology and hermeneutics (Buetow, 2007; Newman & Benz, 1998). When moving across this continuum what is at stake are varying interpretations of the objectivity and subjectivity of research data, the separation of theory from observation, the extent to which the researcher is separate or involved in the research process, and the neutrality or interactivity occurring in language. For the logic of the methodology to hang together, the enquirer needs to take care to ensure that the research question, the methodological assumptions, and the research methods are in alignment (Charmaz, 2008; Torraco, 2002).
Layer 6: Theoretical concepts
Theoretical concepts inhabit the emergent zone and can, in many ways, be seen as the product or “pay-load” of the enquiry. As the other five antecedent layers are set in place and as they begin to interact, they start throwing up a range of other ways of thinking about what is being observed. At first these alternatives surface as vague ideas—ideas that are unformed and difficult to put into words. Next, other ideas begin emerging and crowd into the space generating a kaleidoscope of confusing possibilities. At this point students may require support and encouragement to persevere through this confusion. Next, some of the vague ideas begin to coalesce into more clearly articulated concepts. Ongoing effort is required to improve the clarity of these theoretical concepts because the congestion of competing ideas will continue to obscure a clear way forward. The next task involves paring down and simplifying the concepts to a point where some ideas merge and others fall away as redundant. Again, the student may require further encouragement in relinquishing hard-won ideas. This process continues until the key concepts are both simple and small in number (ideally two to three). They now have the potential to answer or at least to shed light on how the research question might be addressed.
A puppet show
A helpful way to visualize these layers of theory is to think of a dissertation as resembling a performance piece, such as a theatre play or a piece of music, but one where a significant delay occurs between performing the work and its reception. The diagram in Figure 2 uses the metaphor of a puppet show to depict how the various elements come together:
Metaphorical representation of theory layers.
The relevant background theories are represented by the three backdrop walls that surround the stage. These theories have been extracted from readily available literatures that are immediately pertinent to the research question. Above the backdrop stand three grand theorists—Darwin, Freud, and Marx. They, of course, represent only three members from a panoply of other grand theorists who, depending on the topic, could easily be substituted with other thinkers. At the intersection between grand theory and the dissertation project—as depicted by the string control bars—translational theories come into play. These are provided by those who have already made headway in converting grand theory into field-relevant ideas. Underneath and propping up the stage are two further layers, foundational theory and methodology. Foundational theory provides the basic assumptions regarding the intent and purpose of research and what knowledge should look like. Once this is clear, the choice of methodology can be selected from a continuum of well-articulated alternatives ranging from logical positivism to hermeneutics. This, then, will determine how the enquiry will be conducted.
With these layers in place, the stage is set for the performance to take place. A key character (theoretical concept) can be observed moving unpredictably across the stage (the emergent zone), at one point striding out front-stage then shifting back-stage, then perhaps exiting off-stage altogether. Other characters emerge and move across the stage. At another point a key character magically transforms into a new identity. The action is constantly changing and the interplay of characters is perplexing, but slowly the muddled performance sorts itself into a play involving two or three main characters.
Complications
The layered depiction of theory above helps visualize the various ways in which theory feeds into the assembly of the central argument of a thesis, but in practice these layers are not always so easily separated. Each layer will interact with other layers in different ways, and, depending on the nature of the enquiry, these interactions will generate different complications. The following discusses three common forms of complication, namely, layer overlaps, missing theoretical concepts, and mixed methods.
Layer overlaps
In some fields of psychology a background or translational theory might attain such prominence that it begins to look more like a grand theory. For example, such overlaps can be seen when attachment theory came to dominate developmental psychology (Cassidy & Shaver, 2008) and when ordinary language theory came to dominate the philosophy of mind (Capaldi, 1998; Fleming, 2004). Overlaps are a particular issue when theories from content antecedents blend in with theories from the method antecedents. For example, the principles of participatory action research (and other emancipatory methodologies; Alway, 1995) can arguably be viewed as both grand theory and methodology. Such approaches are driven by a fundamental commitment to empowering the participating group (e.g., a community, a work context, or a cultural group) which in turn links grand theories of emancipation with a set of well-defined procedures aimed at ensuring group ownership and accountability (Heron & Reason, 1997). For example, in a study of the social impacts for a disadvantaged group constructing their own community garden, the philosophy of community self-determination is likely to be linked to a range of research procedures that seek to protect this group’s control of the process; it will be they who ultimately determine the research question, the methods, and how the results will be reported.
A key strategy for handling layer overlaps is by recognizing, first and foremost, that the overlaps are actually taking place. This is particularly important with overlaps between content and method antecedents because it helps to avoid muddles between high level objectives and those more pragmatic issues pertaining to the research procedures. With the community garden project, recognition of an overlap between grand theory and methodology helps in recognizing that the participatory action aspects in the methods are only part of what is going on. The project still requires procedures for collecting information and these might, in turn, call on a variety of other methodologies. For example, the task of recording social impacts could involve structured questionnaires drawing on post-positivist survey methods or, alternatively, they could involve in-depth interviews drawing on critical discourse methods. Clarity about such overlaps enables other methods to stand alongside participatory action methods in ways that enhance rather than diminish the overriding grand theory commitment to emancipatory goals.
Missing theoretical concepts
A common anxiety for most novice enquirers concerns whether their efforts with both content and method antecedents will actually yield a pay-load of new theoretical concepts. They may have concerns that their dissertations could merely end up replicating theoretical elements already established by other background or translational theorists; they fear their work will fail to generate new perspectives. This worry is understandable particularly in the early phases when attending to the content and method antecedents. The student enquirer requires reassurance that the emergence of theoretical concepts takes time; that the alchemy between the different layers of theory takes its own course and that its yield may not be immediately apparent. Indeed, given sufficient time the problem is more likely to occur the other way around: the enquiry generates an over-abundance of theoretical concepts where the challenge is more of deciding how to simplify or perhaps cull redundant concepts. Accordingly students need to be advised in two ways: they need to appreciate that the formation of original theoretical concepts take time and that they can expect to put energy into processing and refining these concepts.
Mixed methods
The combination of methods with differing methodological bases has become more commonplace particularly for applied research projects in the social and health sciences (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010). The bringing together of two or more research methods can, arguably, help to compensate for weaknesses with one particular method. For example, a detailed investigation into the dietary habits of older people could bring together results from a big sample “quantitative” survey with information from a small number of in-depth “qualitative” interviews. A theme analysis of the interviews could help flesh out more detailed information on aspects of what is happening for older people that the larger survey might miss. However, this combination of methods risks mixing up underlying assumptions, both at a methodological and foundational theory level (Giddings & Grant, 2007; Greene & Caracelli, 2003). This could result in data comparisons that confuse basic assumptions in ways that generate misleading or perhaps even meaningless assertions.
The risk of meaningless comparisons increases the more the two methodologies diverge. With the enquiry into the dietary habits of older people, should the qualitative analysis shift from a simple theme analysis into a more detailed critical discourse analysis, it becomes considerably more challenging to work out how and where the two forms of enquiry might be drawn together. Critical discourse analysis focuses in power relations and tries to capture common and divergent ways of responding to emancipatory challenges such as stigma and loss of agency (Locke, 2004). The intention and focus of the survey and the in-depth interviews are now very different. For example, do the survey results indicating participants eat less vegetables link to their experience of social stigma? Perhaps, but this could relate to other factors such as mobility or price. Moreover, what is deemed rigorous in one methodological frame could be seen as unacceptable in another frame. Extreme care would need to be taken to avoid violating the integrity of each method and in assessing whether comparisons can be meaningfully derived (Wiggins, 2011).
Order of proceedings
The input of theory into assembling the central argument of a thesis does not happen all at once. During the life-cycle of a thesis each of the six layers of theory identified above come into play at different times. The timeline in Figure 3 provides a rough outline of a common sequence.
Timeline for theory development.
Ideally, attention to background theories should start well before the thesis project has commenced. This is necessary in shaping a clear research question and in assessing whether the question has already been answered elsewhere. Work on foundational theory and methodology needs to occur in the early phases, preferably during the first third of the project (or the first year for PhD theses). The timing is important because once a project commits to a particular methodology, it becomes increasingly more difficult to unpick what has been achieved and to reconstruct the project on an alternative methodological base. The timing for exploring grand theories is not so crucial but it helps to make some progress early on because later phases tend to become dominated by data collection, analysis, and write-up, leaving little room for study and reflection on basic principles. Those who choose to miss out on exploring grand theory will need to attend to transitional theory earlier. This choice, of course, risks weakening the academic depth of the work and may lead later on to attempts at back-filling theory into the thesis. When the other layers have been attended to and when data has been collected and analyzed, the circumstances are ready for theoretical concepts to emerge.
So, what might a theoretically well-constructed thesis begin to look like? This of course will vary across the wide range of different subfields in psychology, coverage of which lies well beyond the scope of this paper. We will illustrate the sequence with one example from clinical psychology: Fiona, a friend of Joseph, is also studying for a PhD and she had chosen to examine the key ingredients of dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) when used in treating seriously at risk adolescents (Dimeff & Koerner, 2007). Before enrolling, she had read through available literatures in three areas of background theory: accounts of how DBT works, the principles of cognitive behavior therapy and the origins of mindfulness. This reading helped Fiona clarify that her interest was in both treatment outcomes and the experiences of those engaging in a youth service employing DBT. For the design of her project she needed a methodological base that enabled her to speak about both observation and personal experience. Thinking this over helped her recognize her goals could not fully be catered for in a “progress” or empirical science frame. She also felt a purely constructivist frame would limit what she could say about the real impacts of therapy. At this point she trawled through the range of possible theories of method and came across writings on critical realism (Fairclough, 2005; Sayer, 2000). The assumptions here seemed well suited to her needs and provided her with a base to undertake a two-armed mixed methods design, one arm focusing on a pre-post evaluation of treatment outcomes, the other arm involving in-depth interviews focusing on client experiences.
Once committed to this methodological base Fiona then read more intensely into the academic origins of this treatment approach. She was able to track the grand theory origins of behaviorism back to American pragmatism and those of Buddhism to Eastern theories of the self. She found it disorienting reading into these two very separate traditions; in the morning she might be reading theory associated with Premack’s Principle and in the afternoon about the interactions between desire and consciousness. Nonetheless, slowly, as the two arms of her research yielded data, some key concepts began to emerge. They came to her slowly, vague and allusive at first, then gaining in clarity and dominating her thinking, before often fading away into the background. At times her mind was crowded with possibilities, but slowly a couple of key concepts won through. Now, as she tackles the task of completing the first draft of her thesis, she is able to draw on common threads in her background theory, her methodology, and her grand theory and she has some key concepts that she can use to help shape her central argument. It troubles her that her friend Joseph is not in the same position and that he has had so many problems articulating what his research is about.
Supportive practices
Student comfort and abilities with theory will be heavily influenced by the way their learning environment values and supports conceptual development (Biggs & Tang, 2011). As happened with Joseph, learning contexts that neglect to teach theory or seldom talk about it, or simply indicate it is of little consequence, will foster reluctance in engaging with theory. This reluctance seriously impoverished the academic merit of a research project. The following suggests four supportive practices aimed at raising the presence of theory to better equip students in assembling the central argument in their theses.
A first supportive practice involves strengthening the presence of theory within formal teaching programs. Generally, teaching courses will include discussion of theory on at least one and possibly two of the six layers of theory discussed above. But this does not guarantee a familiarity and comfort with theory and it certainly does not provide adequate introduction to all six layers. Some academic disciplines (such as sociology and philosophy) will offer exposure to grand and translational theory but may offer less on foundational theory and methodology. Other disciplines (such as psychology and health science) may provide plenty on methodology but less on grand or translational theory. As argued strongly by Gigerenzer (2010), the availability of theory courses or papers in psychology, at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels, will help students find their footing with all six of these layers.
A second supportive practice involves fostering an environment in which theory is visibly present and clearly valued. Since talking about theory may, for many, be experienced with discomfort, such talk is likely to require conscious effort by academic staff in promoting opportunities for discussion. This discussion might be achieved by initiatives such as regular in-house seminars with a focus on theory, reading groups where staff and senior students share progress in understanding a particular theorist, open discussion of theory in coffee breaks, in lunchrooms, and in corridor conversations and invitations to visiting scholars to present not only their research but the development of theory that informs their research.
Within a context where theory is clearly valued, a third supportive practice involves concerted effort to promote discussion of theory during supervision sessions. Such effort does not guarantee a thesis student will respond; their willingness will depend on encouragers in the broader environment and supervisors may need to encourage discussion on theory in a variety of ways. The “order of proceedings” outlined above provides a guide as to which layer of theory and at which stage discussion should occur. For example, early in the project talking about foundational theory and methodology should take precedence, whereas later in the project talk about grand theory and emergent theoretical concepts takes priority.
Finally, students might, on their own behalf, adopt supportive practices aimed at enhancing the contribution of theory to their thesis projects. One very helpful strategy, best adopted at the outset of the project, involves keeping a journal in which they document ideas and emergent concepts. The act of writing ideas down serves both as validation of theory and as a means to develop the ideas further. Another useful strategy involves providing regular one-page summaries of key ideas for discussion during supervision sessions. These summaries could focus on the ideas of a particular theorist or on links between ideas and data or on the key concepts which seem to be emerging out of the enquiry.
It is tempting to assume that when good method and good processes are adequately assembled, good theory will follow. This act of faith fails to recognize the constitutive and multilayered contribution of theory (Gergen & Zielke, 2006; Stam, 2010). Theory is not a passive presence in an enquiry nor does it have a specific and self-contained place within a thesis. Instead, theory permeates all aspects of an enquiry and plays a very active role in the formation of the central argument of a thesis. Unfortunately for students like Joseph, recognition of the constitutive role of theory came too late and now he, somewhat unfairly, must bear the brunt of a negative assessment.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Kim Adams for her assistance with drawing for the diagrams.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.