WhatIsTheory

The initial question was prompted by a task, namely the preparation of an address for the First International Theorizing Education Conference, Laboratory for Educational Theory (LET) at Stirling University, Scotland.

A year or so ago, Nick Burbules suggested that theory is distinguishable from philosophy because theory has "an empirical component" that philosophy does not have. I'm not entirely satisfied with that formulation, but it was a helpful launching point. The way I'm thinking about the distinction now is that theory crosses at least two epistemological planes, whereas philosophy can stay on a single plane (analytic, historical, scientific, aesthetic, ethical, etc.).
 * Theory versus Philosophy**

Trying to think about the possible scope of what "theory" could mean, I got stuck in modern definitions. That is, theories seemed to be those things that were generalizable, predictive, grand, timeless, and universalistic. All characteristics of modernity. What might be the characteristics of a "postmodern theory"? I'm still stumped on this question, although several of the Initial Responses have pushed those thoughts along.
 * Theory as Modern Thing**

**Steve says:**

I don't particularly like the idea of cutting off "theory" from "philosophy" -- it seems that severing the possibilities for connections will close more portals than it might open. I get what Burbules is at with the desire to link "theory" with empiricism, but I'm left wondering what it might mean to talk about philosophy without theory. Just a hunch, but I'm curious how that might look. I recall Rorty writing (as a response to E.D. Hirsch, I think) about philosophy without principles, but I don't know about philosophy without "theory" -- I suppose it all comes back to how one goes about defining theory. And this would imply, perhaps, that Burbules is well within bounds to just define it away as a means for avoiding the overlap. Still, there's something about it that I find odd.

So, what if we combine ideas a bit... What if we say that theory is that which circumscribes the questions we ask and the answers that we allow consideration of? I suppose you might still argue about whether this has "an empirical component," but I think there's enough linguistic wiggle-room to let it sneak by. With that idea about theory in mind, we might be nearing a sort of self-referential set (autopoiesis, some might call it, but not so far as solipsism). That is, it is a theory that permits itself to be considered for the status of "theory," unlike most other definitions of theory. For instance, we can define (theorize?) empirical notions of theory in many ways, but almost none of them are actually members of the sets they describe. Something rather innocuous (to most empirically minded folks) like "an explanation of some aspect of the natural world substantiated with observations and/or data" is a comfortable way to talk about theory as long as you don't ask about the bases upon which >it< is substantiated. [A corollary of this might be how a directive about the need for educational policies to be based on empirical studies is never, itself, based on any empirical study, as some wiser minds than mine have pointed out before.] Might seem rather odd and a bit off to a reader to link definition/theorization in that manner, but that's one thought I had in reading the above pairing of ideas. Perhaps a "po-mo theory" is just something that can operate as per more modern definitions of theory, yet still be able to interrogate itself coherently. What Bretto might say needs to "hang together," I suppose.

Back to your first idea... Theory as crossing more than one "plane" -- I want to understand that more. I'm trying to consider what crossing a plane means. Are you suggesting that "theory" might be helpful to consider as a way to connect (for example) historical and scientific notions of knowledge (i.e., epistemic planes)? I guess I need to hear more about what these "planes" are, how they are delineated (or, at least, how we might see them as distinct), and what it might mean to "cross" them (link them?). Cool idea, though!

Lynn writes: To offer possibilities for distinguishing theory from philosophy does not cut theory off from philosophy. I find it rather important to maintain a wide slurry blurry region between the two, a kind of theory/philosophy estuary. At the same time, the exercise to name a distinction between the two is serving (at the moment for me) as more generative than foreclosing.

The thing about "two planes" is that we can call almost anything we want a plane. Sam, this one's for you: if a plane is defined by three points, and we want to say that a theory crosses at least two planes....

Hsuan-Yi asks: Regarding theory versus. philosophy, I find that philosophy can be seen as an umbrella theory under which there can be many different theories. Is it like what Lynn,said, "theory crosses at least two epistemological planes, whereas philosophy can stay on a single plane (analytic, historical, scientific, aesthetic, ethical, etc.)"? I agree with Lynn that theory is more like a modern thing (coherentist), and this makes me think of the post-modern theory as more like philosophy (pluralist). But this definition might be too simple...still thinking...