key: cord-0941091-xoi1lrn4
authors: Ellaway, Rachel H.
title: Theoriaphobia, theoriaphilia, theoriamania
date: 2021-02-22
journal: Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract
DOI: 10.1007/s10459-021-10035-0
sha: c1071b183ae23183a224106936e12267f07b12be
doc_id: 941091
cord_uid: xoi1lrn4

nan

'there are too many theories so using theory seems arbitrary and contrived'; and 'theories are not something I am familiar with or feel competent using'. Individual theoriaphobia can arise in theory-engaged cultures as well as in cultures that devalue or downplay theory. It is a slow onset chronic condition that can go unnoticed until diagnosed through routine screening such as peer review. False positives are possible, for example, a disinclination to engage with theory that does not exist, is not relevant, or is not useful is not a phobic reaction. A particularly extreme form of theoriaphobia is 'theory paranoia' (quite different to conspiracy theorists) the tendency to see all theory as ideologically suspect.

Theoriaphilia is marked by an unusual love of theory, perhaps a little too intensely to maintain objectivity and rationality. As with theoriaphobia, this philic form may focus either on theory in general or on specific theories, and it may reflect specific applications of theory. The most common theoriaphiliac indicator is a tendency to overemphasize or overfocus on theoretical matters to the detriment of other parts of a study. Other signs can include the need to impose a strict adherence to theory in others (theory policing), or the need to grow one's own theories despite the existence of serviceable alternatives (theory replicators). Theoriaphilia can develop within a theory-obsessed culture or spontaneously in individuals who become entranced by the beauty and power of particular theoretical positions. False positives are possible, for example, orienting a body of scholarly work around exploring or developing substantive theory is not a philic reaction.

Other unusual roles and positions related to theory can include: theory curators (a compelling need to care tor theory, particularly old and fragile theories or strange and exotic ones); theory anarchists (a compelling need to disregard or even tear up the rules of theory); and theory retrofitters (justifying a study or its findings by making arbitrary connections between their work and a range of disconnected theories). These may or may not be problematic according to context, the levels and forms of activity involved, and the goals of the scholars involved.

Although I have painted these philic and phobic reactions as problematic, they need not be. My inclusion of false positives in my fictional clinical vignettes is an important element therefore, not least because how much or in what ways theory does or might play a part in scholarship is bound by context. It is not surprising (or at least it should not be surprising) that scholars, particularly in a largely applied field such as HPE, have differing perspectives and ideologies related to theory. As an indication of this, AHSE is, it might be argued by theoriaphobes, a somewhat theoriaphiliac journal. Theoriaphiliacs on the other hand may still decry the absence of theory in some of the work we publish. The aim of this Journal is not to define or impose a single right way of engaging with theory in scholarly writing, but rather to ensure that contributors and readers consider its place and utility in the differing kinds of work we engage with.

According to Glassick et al. (1997) theory does not in and of itself need to be present for something to be scholarly, only that such work should involve clear goals, adequate preparation, appropriate methods, significant results, effective presentation, and reflective critique. Theory can play a role in any and all of these six dimensions of scholarship, but it does not have to do so. Indeed, theory can ground scholarship, it can guide scholarship, it can be tested by scholarship, and it can be generated by scholarship, but only when it is useful, and it logically makes sense to do so.

In the often rather messy real world of the health professions education sciences, the dispositions I have described are perhaps less black and white or extreme, but they can nevertheless be problematic in a journal such as this where theory is a key part of our scope. As an editor I see many papers that we reject because they fail to consider theory when it is clearly suggested or required by the methodological position taken. I see papers where theory is generated apparently without checking to see whether these theories have already been articulated. I see papers that suggest they will engage with or build theory and then do not do so. I see papers that use theory in scattershot and stochastic ways without any logical sense of how they advance the knowledge claims the work is making. I also see papers that robustly engage with theory in ways that strengthen their work and make significant contributions to the field. I will leave it to you to reflect on which of these approaches to using theory are more likely to be published.

The more astute among you (particularly if you read the paper or the online version of the journal rather than selected papers identified through, say, Pubmed) may have noticed our new cover design. The diagonal split design reflects the duality of 'theory and practice' in our title. I may well return to practice and the dyadic relationship between theory and practice in a future editorial. For now, I would simply ask that all those seeking to have their work published in Advances (as well as those reading the work we do publish) think carefully about how the papers they create or read could and should engage with theory, and how they actually do engage with theory. In particular, is the authors' position on theory explicit, defensible, and proportionate to the paradigm being used, the questions or hypotheses being explored, and the knowledge claims being made? If not, then what are the implications for their findings and arguments?

Finally, and turning to more practical matters, I am pleased to welcome the new associate editors joining the AHSE editorial board this year (see inside front cover for the full list) and I thank those who have stepped down over the past year for their hard work and dedication. The last 12 months were particularly challenging for us as a Journal as well as individually, in part because of the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 emergency, but also because we received twice as many submissions as we had seen the previous year. Thank you to everyone, editors, authors, reviewers, and administrators who did and who continue to do the critical work in making this Journal a home for some of the very best scholarly work in our field.

Rachel Ellaway, January 2021

The complete Monty Python's flying circus: All the words

Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate

Shaping our worldviews: A conversation about and of theory