So, apparently you cannot do good empirical research without theory.
I am starting to get to grips with what is theory (sort of!) and certainly all that I read about the usefulness of theory, and why it is important, makes a lot of sense, no questions there. The idea of using a theoretical framework (when I find one!) and applying it to my research is one that has a deep appeal, and I am looking forward to it... whatever it turns out to be.
That said, the suggestion yesterday that research without theory does not make sense (or indeed theory without research), I find counterintuitive. I can think of so many research projects, reports and analysis that I have come across in the last few years that certainly do not appear to have a theoretical framework. Is it just that they did have an implicit theoretical approach, which was simply unacknowledged? For example, when the MRCI analyses racist profiling, is it informed by an egalitarian theory of race that fundamentally shapes this research and analysis, though it fails to explicitly acknowledge this in an analysis which is primarily presented as descriptive. Or is theory simply not relevant to an exercise such as this... indeed theory might even be thought of as a bad thing, a bias or ideology which would undermine the 'impartiality' of the analysis and arguments being presented? That said NGO reports do not shy away from articulating a 'value' base.
If a theoretical framework is the structure used to build knowledge, do NGO reports like these attempt to put in place building blocks without any scaffolding? Just not sure if I buy that.
