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

[OLAYINKA AGBETUYI]

Moses:

 I am with you all the way on this issue of theory and say that when it comes to the disciplines such as history its a Euro-American imposition.  Until I went to graduate school in Europe I never ever thought there could ever be anything such as theory in history and I fought and kicked all the way to the deciding that I would NEVER take a doctorate in history. Like you said it seemed so forced ( with the supervisor asking me to bring in every chapter for approval before the next to ensure they conform to my initial theoretical underpinning before I write the next one.

At a point I wanted to just stop going back and resign myself to the fact the whole idea of graduate studies was a huge mistake. Then I had a rethink because I thought the whole idea was exhumed to prove the black brain cannot cope with theory and that this black block head was merely another example to prove the point.  That is a planned exclusionary device.

I had 2 or 3 black females who sat in at the first 2 or 3 lectures just to complain that black people were not being given a chance and then disappeared.  Needless to say to buttress their fears I was the only black on the course.

OAA.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

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

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

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

To: USAAfricaDialogue <USAAfric...@googlegroups.com>

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

This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (meoc...@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 USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDial...@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 usaafricadialo...@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.

[OLAYINKA AGBETUYI]

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

[Biko Agozino]

'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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/VI1PR04MB44933B35BD0E37389ED307CBA6FD0%40VI1PR04MB4493.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com.

[OLAYINKA AGBETUYI]

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/1656054581.1707763.1561675005931%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Ogedi Ohajekwe]

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.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/VI1PR04MB4493EA2F6C2926150753E695A6FD0%40VI1PR04MB4493.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com.

[Moses Ebe Ochonu]

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.

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/E58F6CAD-ECAC-479C-ADED-E44CEE0F0DE7%40gmail.com.

[Toyin Falola]

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

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

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.

[Toyin Falola]

I was asked to forward this to the list by a non member.

TF

——-

Since I read this post, I have been very much uncomfortable for a number of reasons. First, the author's viewpoint represents an extremism that is alien to academic/scholarly  conversations or discourses. Second, the use of such terms as 'academic nonsense', 'stupid', 'silly' etc  is unscholarly. Third, all the arguments are very weak and in some cases contradictory or a reflection of some form of misconception of fundamental issues relating to  research methodology . For instance,  how can the author argue that there is 'no logic or compelling scholarly reason' for requiring a theoretical framework as a section in academic dissertations? It is indeed  the theoretical framework that gives a scientific exploration it's  form and shape. Without a theoretical framework, any scientific exploration will be at a great risk of being formless and shapeless. It can be likened to casting a concrete pillar without a  wooden formwork. Can you imagine an animal without a skeleton and how formless or shapeless such an animal would be? That's how formless and shapeless a research investigation would be without a theoretical framework. It is therefore  incorrect to suggest that there are disciplines that operate without theories and so such disciplines should be exempt from the requirement of a theoretical framework. Indeed, it is a mark of scholarly maturity to be able to think theoretically or using models So, the requirement of a theoretical framework for higher degree students is a necessary training  to enable them attain scholarly maturity in their chosen disciplines. The question should therefore not be if theoretical framework is required in all disciplines rather the question should be at  what level should it be required considering the fact  that it is a mark of scholarly maturity. 

The second  argument seems to  portray a  misunderstanding of (a). the place of theoretical framework in the research process and (b). the difference between theoretical framework  and theoretical implications of the findings of a study. Theoretical framework is the foundation on which the study rests whereas theoretical implications are consequential on the end point of the study i.e. the results. What guides your data analysis are your hypotheses and not your theoretical framework per se. Even where the hypotheses are deductions from a theory, the data analysis may support or fail to support such theoretical deductions . So there is the possibility of either strengthening, interrogating, modifying or rejecting  an existing theory. So how then does a  theoretical framework  reduce the research process, in particular data analysis and interpretation, to a mechanistic operation? The third argument is predicated on the premise that theoretical framework reverses the 'proper order of the empirical/theoretical  dyad'. Again this is a flawed argument because the  presupposition is  that the 'proper order' is unidirectional from empirical to theory. We know that we can go in either direction.

Copied..... Prof. B. G.  Nwogu

@@@@@@

*Prof. IBK's Rejoinder to Moses Ochonu's Academic Nonsense*:

Well, if this is a critique of the need for a theoretical or analytical framework in the Humanities ,  then it is itself a piece of nonsense and conceptually incoherent. First, anyone who's conversant with scholarly traditions around the world could see that the theoretical framework requirement exists all over the world,  from India and China to Kenya and Brazil. So it's false and uninformed to claim that it's required only in Nigerian universities.  Let Mr.  Ochonu the writer show that this is peculiarly Nigerian.  Second,  if something is not done in a US university where Mr. Ochonu is based then it is "nonsense"?. Third,  it's the emancipation of the Humanities from Positivism and Empiricism in the 1950s, consequent upon the writings of Thomas Kuhn  and Fierarbend that turned the Humanities into a concept based disciplinary formation.  So it's nonsense to think that just because the Humanities are necessarily theory-laden,  researchers in the field should not discuss the analytical frames that informed their proposals and research outcomes? This is ridiculous and an unnecessary hairs splitting.  Third,  there are some areas in the Humanities,  for example literary and textual scholarship, that are wholly dedicated to the study of theoretical formations and methodologies.  It's purely pedantic and gross to claim that a clear delineation of theoretical parameters is unnecessary.  Fourth, there is the very dubious claim by Mr. Ochonu that an African scholar should not invoke the theories of a "dead white" author.  This purely anti-intellectual and potentially racist claim consigns intellectual production to ethnicity.  One response is to ask Mr.  Ochonu to mention the dead or living AFRICAN authors we here should more properly invoke. Fifth,  nowhere in the world would anyone write a piece of research in the Humanities and be required not explicitly state the underlying conceptual resources and the analytical presuppositions of their paper or research.  Of course this may be explicit in the very diction and vocabulary the author uses but for academic clarity and analytical precision, this should be stated clearly,  especially in a piece of research that claims to open up new vistas for knowledge  production.  Sixth,  how does a supervisor steer their students away from Eclecticism and analytical incoherence? It's by asking the student researcher to be sensitive about the theoretical tools or mechanisms that she chooses to investigate a research field.  A clear statement by a student researcher about the scope or limitations of their chosen conceptual frames is an academic virtue, not nonsense. Rather,  it's nothing but crude empiricism and arrogant intuitionism, disguized as sophisticated argument, to plead for the rejection of the theoretical framework section in Humanistic research proposals. Not only would this insistence make research in the area chaotic but also infested with the crude intuituonism that Humanistic scholars had labourered to undermine in the 1950s, when Positivist values almost rendered the Humanities incoherent and crudely empiricist. Finally,  a recent "call for conference papers" on New Trends in the Humanities at Monash University in Australia encouraged potential participants to discuss the impact of Theory on humanistic research.  So  it's not just Nigerian Universities that are  theoretical framework discussion in research proposals! Let me close with this observation.  Mr. Ochonu  and his likes are the typical Third World persons who were trained in their native countries and who happened to have emigrated to Western universities, and who would now want to dictate to their former teachers and universities how things should be done,  as if their former teachers do not know anything about new trends in world scholarship.  It's a kind of reverse imperial arrogance very well analysed and unpacked by scholars such as Neil Lazarus and Arid Darlik, among others. Imagine, as a supervisor, asking student researchers at all levels to ignore the "theoretical framework" section f a Proposal or the Dissertation proper.  What would the students say coherently and conceptually? All we could have is the  death of humanistic research and the production of incoherent eclecticism that would destroy,  in the long run,  any claim for academic and research rigour in the Humanities. Finally, it would mean not teaching  the theoretical foundations f the discipline. Even Economists and Political Scientists stop teaching "theory' in all its ramifications. Maybe Mr. Ochonu is aspiring to be the living African author we should be emulating when we come to frame research topics. This is utter nonsense, of course.

@@@@@@

I will tell you why. Theoretical  Framework (TF) is a  foundational principle of a research work and it plays an important role in guiding and directing the said work. In fact doing a research without TF is like building a house without a foundation- it will collapse! So TF is an outline to building, modelling and constructing research ideas. It helps to identify past,present, possible and future approach to ideas or thought. TF serves as a reference and base for defining relationships among variables, help to test hypotheses, concepts, definitions, procedures, observations, interpretations, etc. TF is part of academic tradition and scholarship; a rule enforcing umpire for every work that claims to be a Ph.D.- ie Doctor of Philosophy , which is knowledge at its depth!

Sent from my iPhone

 @@@@

I will tell you why. Theoretical  Framework (TF) is a  foundational principle of a research work and it plays an important role in guiding and directing the said work. In fact doing a research without TF is like building a house without a foundation- it will collapse! So TF is an outline to building, modelling and constructing research ideas. It helps to identify past,present, possible and future approach to ideas or thought. TF serves as a 

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.

[OLAYINKA AGBETUYI]

First of all discoveries made by accident can be part of academic research.  It can make you re-evaluate your whole theoretical assumptions and if necessary fine tune it.

My graduate history course was specifically focused on history theory. I was made to feel I hit a hold mine at the end.  I got to the US spoke to recent Phd history graduate and I learned generally history is not done that way in the US (which I found to be true after teaching history for several years in the US) including teaching graduating seniors).

When I used. theoretical framework to interpret events in my graduate thesis it was borrowed from sociology which Biko rightly referred to as a theorizing discipline in away which history is not and cannot be

I think the whole issue is about grounding history in the social sciences than in the art but history is equally in the social sciences and the arts.  In the arts because it involves the personality of historians more than the social sciences allow even though it deals with facys

I share your loose sense of theory underlying All human activities and have used that argument many times over the years but that is not what is aunt stake here.

OAA

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

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

From: Ogedi Ohajekwe <ged...@gmail.com>

Date: 28/06/2019 03:44 (GMT+00:00)

To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com

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

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

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 <yagb...@hotmail.com> wrote:

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 USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDial...@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 usaafricadialo...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/E58F6CAD-ECAC-479C-ADED-E44CEE0F0DE7%40gmail.com.

[OLAYINKA AGBETUYI]

We are not talking of 'scientific explorations' in history and the author made clear he was talking about history and there can be no one hat fits all in the academia.  I agree with him

OAA

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

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

From: Toyin Falola <toyin...@austin.utexas.edu>

Date: 28/06/2019 11:18 (GMT+00:00)

To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com

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

This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (toyin...@austin.utexas.edu) Add cleanup rule | More info

I was asked to forward this to the list by a non member.

TF

——-

Since I read this post, I have been very much uncomfortable for a number of reasons. First, the author's viewpoint represents an extremism that is alien to academic/scholarly  conversations or discourses. Second, the use of such terms as 'academic nonsense', 'stupid', 'silly' etc  is unscholarly. Third, all the arguments are very weak and in some cases contradictory or a reflection of some form of misconception of fundamental issues relating to  research methodology . For instance,  how can the author argue that there is 'no logic or compelling scholarly reason' for requiring a theoretical framework as a section in academic dissertations? It is indeed  the theoretical framework that gives a scientific exploration it's  form and shape. Without a theoretical framework, any scientific exploration will be at a great risk of being formless and shapeless. It can be likened to casting a concrete pillar without a  wooden formwork. Can you imagine an animal without a skeleton and how formless or shapeless such an animal would be? That's how formless and shapeless a research investigation would be without a theoretical framework. It is therefore  incorrect to suggest that there are disciplines that operate without theories and so such disciplines should be exempt from the requirement of a theoretical framework. Indeed, it is a mark of scholarly maturity to be able to think theoretically or using models So, the requirement of a theoretical framework for higher degree students is a necessary training  to enable them attain scholarly maturity in their chosen disciplines. The question should therefore not be if theoretical framework is required in all disciplines rather the question should be at  what level should it be required considering the fact  that it is a mark of scholarly maturity. 

The second  argument seems to  portray a  misunderstanding of (a). the place of theoretical framework in the research process and (b). the difference between theoretical framework  and theoretical implications of the findings of a study. Theoretical framework is the foundation on which the study rests whereas theoretical implications are consequential on the end point of the study i.e. the results. What guides your data analysis are your hypotheses and not your theoretical framework per se. Even where the hypotheses are deductions from a theory, the data analysis may support or fail to support such theoretical deductions . So there is the possibility of either strengthening, interrogating, modifying or rejecting  an existing theory. So how then does a  theoretical framework  reduce the research process, in particular data analysis and interpretation, to a mechanistic operation? The third argument is predicated on the premise that theoretical framework reverses the 'proper order of the empirical/theoretical  dyad'. Again this is a flawed argument because the  presupposition is  that the 'proper order' is unidirectional from empirical to theory. We know that we can go in either direction.

Copied..... Prof. B. G.  Nwogu

@@@@@@

*Prof. IBK's Rejoinder to Moses Ochonu's Academic Nonsense*:

Well, if this is a critique of the need for a theoretical or analytical framework in the Humanities ,  then it is itself a piece of nonsense and conceptually incoherent. First, anyone who's conversant with scholarly traditions around the world could see that the theoretical framework requirement exists all over the world,  from India and China to Kenya and Brazil. So it's false and uninformed to claim that it's required only in Nigerian universities.  Let Mr.  Ochonu the writer show that this is peculiarly Nigerian.  Second,  if something is not done in a US university where Mr. Ochonu is based then it is "nonsense"?. Third,  it's the emancipation of the Humanities from Positivism and Empiricism in the 1950s, consequent upon the writings of Thomas Kuhn  and Fierarbend that turned the Humanities into a concept based disciplinary formation.  So it's nonsense to think that just because the Humanities are necessarily theory-laden,  researchers in the field should not discuss the analytical frames that informed their proposals and research outcomes? This is ridiculous and an unnecessary hairs splitting.  Third,  there are some areas in the Humanities,  for example literary and textual scholarship, that are wholly dedicated to the study of theoretical formations and methodologies.  It's purely pedantic and gross to claim that a clear delineation of theoretical parameters is unnecessary.  Fourth, there is the very dubious claim by Mr. Ochonu that an African scholar should not invoke the theories of a "dead white" author.  This purely anti-intellectual and potentially racist claim consigns intellectual production to ethnicity.  One response is to ask Mr.  Ochonu to mention the dead or living AFRICAN authors we here should more properly invoke. Fifth,  nowhere in the world would anyone write a piece of research in the Humanities and be required not explicitly state the underlying conceptual resources and the analytical presuppositions of their paper or research.  Of course this may be explicit in the very diction and vocabulary the author uses but for academic clarity and analytical precision, this should be stated clearly,  especially in a piece of research that claims to open up new vistas for knowledge  production.  Sixth,  how does a supervisor steer their students away from Eclecticism and analytical incoherence? It's by asking the student researcher to be sensitive about the theoretical tools or mechanisms that she chooses to investigate a research field.  A clear statement by a student researcher about the scope or limitations of their chosen conceptual frames is an academic virtue, not nonsense. Rather,  it's nothing but crude empiricism and arrogant intuitionism, disguized as sophisticated argument, to plead for the rejection of the theoretical framework section in Humanistic research proposals. Not only would this insistence make research in the area chaotic but also infested with the crude intuituonism that Humanistic scholars had labourered to undermine in the 1950s, when Positivist values almost rendered the Humanities incoherent and crudely empiricist. Finally,  a recent "call for conference papers" on New Trends in the Humanities at Monash University in Australia encouraged potential participants to discuss the impact of Theory on humanistic research.  So  it's not just Nigerian Universities that are  theoretical framework discussion in research proposals! Let me close with this observation.  Mr. Ochonu  and his likes are the typical Third World persons who were trained in their native countries and who happened to have emigrated to Western universities, and who would now want to dictate to their former teachers and universities how things should be done,  as if their former teachers do not know anything about new trends in world scholarship.  It's a kind of reverse imperial arrogance very well analysed and unpacked by scholars such as Neil Lazarus and Arid Darlik, among others. Imagine, as a supervisor, asking student researchers at all levels to ignore the "theoretical framework" section f a Proposal or the Dissertation proper.  What would the students say coherently and conceptually? All we could have is the  death of humanistic research and the production of incoherent eclecticism that would destroy,  in the long run,  any claim for academic and research rigour in the Humanities. Finally, it would mean not teaching  the theoretical foundations f the discipline. Even Economists and Political Scientists stop teaching "theory' in all its ramifications. Maybe Mr. Ochonu is aspiring to be the living African author we should be emulating when we come to frame research topics. This is utter nonsense, of course.

@@@@@@

I will tell you why. Theoretical  Framework (TF) is a  foundational principle of a research work and it plays an important role in guiding and directing the said work. In fact doing a research without TF is like building a house without a foundation- it will collapse! So TF is an outline to building, modelling and constructing research ideas. It helps to identify past,present, possible and future approach to ideas or thought. TF serves as a reference and base for defining relationships among variables, help to test hypotheses, concepts, definitions, procedures, observations, interpretations, etc. TF is part of academic tradition and scholarship; a rule enforcing umpire for every work that claims to be a Ph.D.- ie Doctor of Philosophy , which is knowledge at its depth!

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 28, 2019, at 9:47 AM, Moses Ebe Ochonu <meoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

 @@@@

I will tell you why. Theoretical  Framework (TF) is a  foundational principle of a research work and it plays an important role in guiding and directing the said work. In fact doing a research without TF is like building a house without a foundation- it will collapse! So TF is an outline to building, modelling and constructing research ideas. It helps to identify past,present, possible and future approach to ideas or thought. TF serves as a 

 

 

--

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.

--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDial...@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 usaafricadialo...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/9F7A4067-EF83-4327-BAA4-09B15F7DD195%40austin.utexas.edu.

[Femi Kolapo]

I think these are important issues that Moses and his respondents have raised. History and theory; history research methods in Nigerian universities; quality of supervision; etc. These engaging and illuminating discussions should be encouraged. I like to respond to some of Moses' bullet points:

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.

My experience with under/graduate research in Nigeria is limited to just a couple of universities. In these universities, ABU, Zaria, inclusive, while it is the convention that students' research have a theoretical framework, students are not told to  “adopt” one. Students are expected to engage with assumptions, concepts, ideas and theories that they hold and believe might be relevant to their research.  It is therefore in design a proper requirement of situating one's research within the relevant genealogy of earlier ones.  Most conventions, if they are thought through and are accepted as needful, tend to become “imposed, rigidly enforced requirement”.

If students, however, “adopt a theoretical framework with no justification for why it is necessary or suitable for their topic or research questions”, it is the duty of the supervisor to guide the students onto the right approach. But that presupposes that the supervisor him/herself is conversant with the requirements of this aspect of the research. The problem, therefore, transcends the students to the supervisor.

One must know theory to be able to apply it and be able to teach his or her students to engage in it.  It seems that restricted access to latest publications and theories in Nigerian schools has over the years negatively affected the depth and quality of exposure to theory and application of theory that our young (and not so young) professors have had. Maybe the problem is therefore at the deeper structural level of resources and curriculum.  But it should be said that some history departments don’t like theory, don’t teach it, and don’t apply it.

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.

In fact, much of the problem about theory or no theory could be resolved and be fruitfully subsumed under an excellent literature review. In my own experience with some of our students’ social science and humanities research from Nigeria, the literature review is generally poorly done in terms of quantity, quality, relevance and the datedness of the literature referenced. In most cases, you just have a collection of summaries of ideas and assertions of this and that author without any critical examination of the import of those ideas and assertions to each other and their particular relevance to the topic being examined so as to demonstrate the gap that the new research will fill. A good literature review would ordinarily not engage only with facts and assertions and conclusions. It would identify theories and concepts deployed by authors being reviewed and assess their relevance to the topic at hand. Give me an excellent literature review and that is sufficient for me.

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.

As a historian I believe that the historical method can stand on its own and agree that in some instances you can have excellent research even if you choose to not engage with any explicit theory as the overall guard rail for your study. But the historical method is itself a way of knowing, of explaining reality. It is a specific way of handling evidence. There are other ways and these could, if relevant, be included in historical analysis. People in literature, especially postmodernists, for instance, have criticized the “metanarativity” of conventional history. History therefore already encloses theory. There is nothing wrong with examining reality through different prisms. It is also cannot be methodologically improper to ask that students examine categories of thought and models they would use and assumptions they bring to bear on their analysis.

Where the historian engages with economic issues, engaging with theories from economics will obviously illuminate narrative analysis; where social structures are concerned, and the Historian is knowledgeable in sociological theories, it is very helpful to cross-relate those viewpoints and analytic methods to appraise reality. Reality by nature is multivalent. No single method of knowing can fully comprehend it. That is also why multi or inter -disciplinarity is welcome. But it is, also I believe, the reason why disciplinary boundaries are there in the first place. Variety, complexity, ambiguity, and multi-dimensionality of life.

However, “theoretical framework” as a mere rote recitation of social science concepts which must then be forced on the evidence is problematic. The bigger problem, therefore, may be how to get our student historians to know theory and how to engage with theory, not that they must disdain and condemn it or think that it is irrelevant to history.  If the “framework” becomes a tyrannical formula that facts must be fitted in, then of course, the scholar has to be liberated from such tyranny.

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."

My experience, again limited to only a handful of works I have reviewed, is that the theoretical framework, when poorly done, is largely a collection of other scholars’ assertions and descriptions of other scholars' theories. I find that in those cases they tend to have little or no bearing at all on the larger body of the narrative that the student has produced.  The theoretical framework section turns out, therefore, to distract and to detract from the quality of the work. They tend to have no value added. Delete the entire section and the work comes to no harm!

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.

 a very good literature analysis will always clear this problem – of relevance. I don’t believe, though, nor see any methodological justification for the idea that any theory should a priori be ruled out because they are too old, they have racist genealogies, or because their authors are dead or are not black, though black theorists of realities should not have their theories excluded or ignored when found relevant.  All theories have their limitations. Critical evaluation of the theories would or should take care of these. 

Femi  J. Kolapo 

---

From: usaafric...@googlegroups.com <usaafric...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of OLAYINKA AGBETUYI <yagb...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 7:11:21 AM

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/VI1PR04MB44934D373474F20255B6B47CA6FC0%40VI1PR04MB4493.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com.

[Ogedi Ohajekwe]

The appropriate saying here is that there is no need to reinvent the wheel!

Use it, or you will have to explain why the wheel can run well in any other place except Nigeria.

Ogedi 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/VI1PR04MB44934D373474F20255B6B47CA6FC0%40VI1PR04MB4493.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com.

[Moses Ebe Ochonu]

As for the "rejoinder" by IBK, I present two responses to him from my interlocutors, Dr. Okechukwu Nwafor, a faculty member at a federal university in Nigeria and presently a postdoc fellow in South Africa and Mitterand Okorie, a doctoral student in South Africa. There is nothing to add as they have covered everything more eloquently than I could.

Analysis of Professor Moses Ochonu’s position on ‘Theoretical Framework’ and that of Professor Bello Kanu.
By Okechukwu Nwafor

Moses Ochonu’s article titled “The academic nonsense called "Theoretical Framework" in Nigerian universities” is indeed a compelling and radical intervention in rethinking Nigeria’s rigid and archaic academic tradition. 
Ochonu’s overall argument resides in re-processing academic learning in Nigeria to allow for a more dynamic, essentially modernistic mode of practice. This mode of practice should and must not discipline and punish students who do not abide by the immutable and willful law of penning down ‘Theoretical Framework’ on a section of their dissertation, irrespective of whether a theory is needed or not.  

A response by one Professor Bello Kanu from Bayero University Kano in Nigeria was intended to perforate the bulging critical meanings Ochonu’s text was beginning to gather in Nigeria and beyond. Yet after reading Bello’s submission I could not see anything that could offer a persuasive counter to Ochonu’s excellent text. 

Rather what I see in Bello’s writing is a bitter motive to renounce a knowledge that derives from diaspora-based Nigerian academic without any apparent reason. I simply understand it from the historic tension that exists between Nigerian based academics and Nigerian academics based in the diaspora, especially those located in Euro-American institutions. 
Nigerian-based academics believe that those located in Euro-American academic institutions are deriding their scholarship. To prove this, listen to Professor Bello: “Second, if something is not done in a US university where Mr. Ochonu is based then it is "nonsense"? On the contrary, Nigerian academics based in the diaspora believe that Nigerian academic tradition has long expired and dead and desperately needs a miraculous resurrection. 

Notwithstanding the two tensions we must accede to one fact: Nigerian academic system is in coma, if not dead. Even ASUU accepts this fact and constantly go on strike to seek intervention. So why should anyone in Bello’s academic standing doubt the obvious fact? 

Having said that, Bello could not make any single point that suggests that Ochonu’s submission is not a novel idea that needs applause. For example, aspects of Bello’s argument is about the historical imperative that necessitated a turn to the theoretical, especially based on the 1950’s rejection of scientific empiricism and positivism. Ochonu never disputed this historic turnaround towards a conceptual based discipline. Bello misses the point. Ochonu simply argues that not all discipline and dissertation and topics require the systematic imposition of this militarized academic commandment called “Theoretical Framework”.

Bello again argues and I quote: “Third, there are some areas in the Humanities, for example literary and textual scholarship, that are wholly dedicated to the study of theoretical formations and methodologies.” After reading this I doubt whether Bello actually read Ochonu’s text in detail or whether he just scanned through. Listen to Ochonu: “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.” So I wonder what differs from Ochonu’s submission here and what Bello wrote other than a seemingly inherent repugnance for Nigerian academics based in the diaspora. 

Contrary to Bello’s submission that “It's purely pedantic and gross to claim that a clear delineation of theoretical parameters is unnecessary” Ochonu never said that but rather argues that “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?” Again, here, I see in Bello one who has allowed his vision and capacity for unbiased intellectual engagement to be subdued by his phobia for diaspora academics.

I need not go further. All submissions by Bello are flawed: Listen to him “Fifth, nowhere in the world would anyone write a piece of research in the Humanities and be required not explicitly state the underlying conceptual resources and the analytical presuppositions of their paper or research.” He also states that Ochonu pleaded “for the rejection of the theoretical framework section in Humanistic research proposals”. It is not true. 

Ochonu never argued that anyone should not do any of the above rather he said that it could be ‘explicitly’ done without writing them under the two words: “Theoretical Framework’. Ochonu is concerned, as many of us are, about these two words “Theoretical Framework” and the implications of their unimaginative, hackneyed insertion into anything called dissertation. Ochonu even offered other inventive ways of doing theory which Bello cared less to heed to. 

In fact, almost every sentence by Bello merely asserted his tendentious rejection of what Ochonu represents: diaspora Nigerian academics. In my own PhD dissertation I wrote “Theoretical orientations” and no one compelled me to do so even. In other PhD dissertations I read there were no specific mention of ‘Theoretical Framework’ rather as a perceptive student would understand how theory has been embedded in data.  

Finally Ochonu argues that a pre-determined intention to do theory without analyzing data first fundamentally problematizes academic writing in Nigeria and should be re-considered. Bello should accept a superior argument simple.

 

 

Mitterand Okorie Whoever wrote the rejoinder totally misunderstood Prof. Ochonu's initial critique. He didn't say conceptual framework is useless. His grouse was that it was being used in instances where it's both empirically redundant and conceptually unnecessary. Certain phenomenon exists that do not conform to existing theoretical frameworks. It was therefore reductive to pigeonhole them there just for the purpose of conforming to some regimented academic tradition. For this reason, Nigerian academics must grow up. He did not say it was the tradition only in Nigeria but being Nigerian, it's obvious why he is particular about Nigeria than Kenya or Brazil. Whoever wrote the rejoinder must first take time to digest the initial post, and perhaps read it up slowly this time. The whole "is it because he teaches in a U.S varsity" is a tired ad hominem that is very common among Nigerian academic community. I got that a lot myself with colleagues who wanted to shut me down in College Seminars with the taunt "is it because you studied abroad?" 

We must learn to debate issues and not personalities.

 

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 3:25 PM Moses Ebe Ochonu <meoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Femi,

Thanks for these excellent points. I have minor quibbles, not worth going into. I broadly agree with your submissions, and your encounter with "theoretical frameworks" in Nigerian scholarly writing aligns with mine. It is usually a rote recitation of theoretical postulations that are disconnected from the study and that are not critically engaged. The only thing I want to point out is that it is indeed a requirement in Nigerian humanities and social science scholarship especially but not limited to graduate degrees. I don't know the last time you read or engaged with Nigerian dissertations. The problem I am discussing is real and it is quite recent, hence my angst. During my undergraduate studies, there was no "theoretical framework" requirement in my universities, not in History, not in English, not in Political Science, not in Mass Communication, and certainly not in other social science and humanities fields. Not sure of sociology since I didn't have any friend who was a sociology major. I do not know when this bad practice crept into Nigerian universities and became nationally paradigmatic. But a senior colleague told me privately this morning that it began as a way for people in the humanities and social sciences in Nigerian universities to address the question of their disciplines' relevance since they were facing pressures to justify the importance of their fields. The government and other stakeholders were beginning to consider those disciplines "useless." If this is truly the genealogy of the new fetish of "theoretical framework" then our colleagues in Nigeria have created a tyrannical monster in the effort to demonstrate or make a point. They didn't have to create a bigger problem to solve the problem of instrumental relevance that they allowed themselves to be burdened with. My next provocation is going to dwell on another stupid requirement that has even crept into the humanities: dissertations have to have a section that discuss "policy implications." Even history dissertations now have such sections. It was heartening to read recently from Professor Okpeh Okpeh, the president of the Historical Society of Nigeria, that the society has begun discouraging the requirement/practice and has produced a methodological guidebook for history departments. I hope that other professional associations follow.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/QB1PR01MB31227CC77B41E321BA734F18BFFC0%40QB1PR01MB3122.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[Moses Ebe Ochonu]

Femi,

Thanks for these excellent points. I have minor quibbles, not worth going into. I broadly agree with your submissions, and your encounter with "theoretical frameworks" in Nigerian scholarly writing aligns with mine. It is usually a rote recitation of theoretical postulations that are disconnected from the study and that are not critically engaged. The only thing I want to point out is that it is indeed a requirement in Nigerian humanities and social science scholarship especially but not limited to graduate degrees. I don't know the last time you read or engaged with Nigerian dissertations. The problem I am discussing is real and it is quite recent, hence my angst. During my undergraduate studies, there was no "theoretical framework" requirement in my universities, not in History, not in English, not in Political Science, not in Mass Communication, and certainly not in other social science and humanities fields. Not sure of sociology since I didn't have any friend who was a sociology major. I do not know when this bad practice crept into Nigerian universities and became nationally paradigmatic. But a senior colleague told me privately this morning that it began as a way for people in the humanities and social sciences in Nigerian universities to address the question of their disciplines' relevance since they were facing pressures to justify the importance of their fields. The government and other stakeholders were beginning to consider those disciplines "useless." If this is truly the genealogy of the new fetish of "theoretical framework" then our colleagues in Nigeria have created a tyrannical monster in the effort to demonstrate or make a point. They didn't have to create a bigger problem to solve the problem of instrumental relevance that they allowed themselves to be burdened with. My next provocation is going to dwell on another stupid requirement that has even crept into the humanities: dissertations have to have a section that discuss "policy implications." Even history dissertations now have such sections. It was heartening to read recently from Professor Okpeh Okpeh, the president of the Historical Society of Nigeria, that the society has begun discouraging the requirement/practice and has produced a methodological guidebook for history departments. I hope that other professional associations follow.

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 1:39 PM Femi Kolapo <kol...@uoguelph.ca> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/QB1PR01MB31227CC77B41E321BA734F18BFFC0%40QB1PR01MB3122.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[OLAYINKA AGBETUYI]

The experience I detailed were not in Nigeria. They were in the UK and the US. Whit eBritish students Struggled just like Nigerians do.  Black British refrained from enrollment  I ( the dept appeared to be shooting itself in the foot by not making the discipline student friendly and when people like me wanted to time out they wanted to hold onto me by surreptitious force)  

It. was an outmoded system as Moses correctly maintained imposed by the British academia in particular on their own students.

What Moses appears to be arguing is that Nigerian  academia should not in a fit of neo- colonialism and in the guise of universality insist on continued imposition on the Nigerian academic system and I think he is right.

OAA

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

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

From: Ogedi Ohajekwe <ged...@gmail.com>

Date: 28/06/2019 19:53 (GMT+00:00)

To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com

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

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

The appropriate saying here is that there is no need to reinvent the wheel!

Use it, or you will have to explain why the wheel can run well in any other place except Nigeria.

Ogedi 

On Jun 28, 2019, at 7:11 AM, OLAYINKA AGBETUYI <yagb...@hotmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/VI1PR04MB44934D373474F20255B6B47CA6FC0%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 USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDial...@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 usaafricadialo...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/68CAB512-6F94-40C9-8E7B-56A8D6381D03%40gmail.com.

[OLAYINKA AGBETUYI]

Well, Oga Kolapo,

The long and short of things if I read you correctly is that if Moses noticed all of those lapses the Nigerian professors are not doing their job well!

Shi kenna.

OAA

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

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

From: Femi Kolapo <kol...@uoguelph.ca>

Date: 28/06/2019 19:53 (GMT+00:00)

To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com

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

This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (kol...@uoguelph.ca) Add cleanup rule | More info

I think these are important issues that Moses and his respondents have raised. History and theory; history research methods in Nigerian universities; quality of supervision; etc. These engaging and illuminating discussions should be encouraged. I like to respond to some of Moses' bullet points:

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.

My experience with under/graduate research in Nigeria is limited to just a couple of universities. In these universities, ABU, Zaria, inclusive, while it is the convention that students' research have a theoretical framework, students are not told to  “adopt” one. Students are expected to engage with assumptions, concepts, ideas and theories that they hold and believe might be relevant to their research.  It is therefore in design a proper requirement of situating one's research within the relevant genealogy of earlier ones.  Most conventions, if they are thought through and are accepted as needful, tend to become “imposed, rigidly enforced requirement”.

If students, however, “adopt a theoretical framework with no justification for why it is necessary or suitable for their topic or research questions”, it is the duty of the supervisor to guide the students onto the right approach. But that presupposes that the supervisor him/herself is conversant with the requirements of this aspect of the research. The problem, therefore, transcends the students to the supervisor.

One must know theory to be able to apply it and be able to teach his or her students to engage in it.  It seems that restricted access to latest publications and theories in Nigerian schools has over the years negatively affected the depth and quality of exposure to theory and application of theory that our young (and not so young) professors have had. Maybe the problem is therefore at the deeper structural level of resources and curriculum.  But it should be said that some history departments don’t like theory, don’t teach it, and don’t apply it.

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.

In fact, much of the problem about theory or no theory could be resolved and be fruitfully subsumed under an excellent literature review. In my own experience with some of our students’ social science and humanities research from Nigeria, the literature review is generally poorly done in terms of quantity, quality, relevance and the datedness of the literature referenced. In most cases, you just have a collection of summaries of ideas and assertions of this and that author without any critical examination of the import of those ideas and assertions to each other and their particular relevance to the topic being examined so as to demonstrate the gap that the new research will fill. A good literature review would ordinarily not engage only with facts and assertions and conclusions. It would identify theories and concepts deployed by authors being reviewed and assess their relevance to the topic at hand. Give me an excellent literature review and that is sufficient for me.

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.

As a historian I believe that the historical method can stand on its own and agree that in some instances you can have excellent research even if you choose to not engage with any explicit theory as the overall guard rail for your study. But the historical method is itself a way of knowing, of explaining reality. It is a specific way of handling evidence. There are other ways and these could, if relevant, be included in historical analysis. People in literature, especially postmodernists, for instance, have criticized the “metanarativity” of conventional history. History therefore already encloses theory. There is nothing wrong with examining reality through different prisms. It is also cannot be methodologically improper to ask that students examine categories of thought and models they would use and assumptions they bring to bear on their analysis.

Where the historian engages with economic issues, engaging with theories from economics will obviously illuminate narrative analysis; where social structures are concerned, and the Historian is knowledgeable in sociological theories, it is very helpful to cross-relate those viewpoints and analytic methods to appraise reality. Reality by nature is multivalent. No single method of knowing can fully comprehend it. That is also why multi or inter -disciplinarity is welcome. But it is, also I believe, the reason why disciplinary boundaries are there in the first place. Variety, complexity, ambiguity, and multi-dimensionality of life.

However, “theoretical framework” as a mere rote recitation of social science concepts which must then be forced on the evidence is problematic. The bigger problem, therefore, may be how to get our student historians to know theory and how to engage with theory, not that they must disdain and condemn it or think that it is irrelevant to history.  If the “framework” becomes a tyrannical formula that facts must be fitted in, then of course, the scholar has to be liberated from such tyranny.

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."

My experience, again limited to only a handful of works I have reviewed, is that the theoretical framework, when poorly done, is largely a collection of other scholars’ assertions and descriptions of other scholars' theories. I find that in those cases they tend to have little or no bearing at all on the larger body of the narrative that the student has produced.  The theoretical framework section turns out, therefore, to distract and to detract from the quality of the work. They tend to have no value added. Delete the entire section and the work comes to no harm!

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.

 a very good literature analysis will always clear this problem – of relevance. I don’t believe, though, nor see any methodological justification for the idea that any theory should a priori be ruled out because they are too old, they have racist genealogies, or because their authors are dead or are not black, though black theorists of realities should not have their theories excluded or ignored when found relevant.  All theories have their limitations. Critical evaluation of the theories would or should take care of these. 

Femi  J. Kolapo 

From: usaafric...@googlegroups.com <usaafric...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of OLAYINKA AGBETUYI <yagb...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 7:11:21 AM

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/VI1PR04MB44934D373474F20255B6B47CA6FC0%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 USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDial...@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 usaafricadialo...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/QB1PR01MB31227CC77B41E321BA734F18BFFC0%40QB1PR01MB3122.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[Moses Ebe Ochonu]

I'm overwhelmed by the national resonance of my two posts on the tyranny of "theoretical framework" in Nigerian higher education. But even more surprising is the continental resonance. A Kenyan and a Ghanaian have responded to say that there is the same problem in their countries' higher ed system. Several Zimbabweans have written to say it's the same in their country. And now, an Ethiopian has confirmed that they face the same tyranny of regimented imposition of "theoretical framework." This is clearly a continental problem, something that I had not realized. The question is why and when--why did such a bad scholarly practice take hold across the continent and when did it begin?

On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 1:55 PM Moses Ebe Ochonu <meoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

A few more things:

1. I am told that the "theoretical framework" requirement for dissertations and theses was imposed on universities by the NUC and that many lecturers do not actually agree with it but have no choice but to implement it. If true, then they, too, are victims of a terrible higher education regulatory system, which would then beg the question of why a few among them have reacted so defensively to my posts on the subject. Why defend a regime or practice you don't agree with?

2. The problem is far more extensive than my posts have captured. The result of these formulaic and uniform dissertation requirements is that you pick up the average Nigerian PhD or Masters thesis and you realize that there is only one substantive chapter containing original research and analysis.  The rest is just fluff--chapters dealing with research questions, research statement, literature review, methodology, theoretical framework, conclusion, and appendix. Then you ask: where is the meat, where is the dissertation? I have done external examination and promotion evaluation and have seen this problem.

3. A related vexing problem is another requirement for all social science and humanities dissertations: they have to have a section on "policy implications." I have encountered this in history, English, sociology, philosophy, political science, and mass communication dissertations when the topic is not a policy-oriented one. Again, as with the "theoretical framework" issue, the blanket imposition of the requirement regardless of topic, discipline, research questions, and arguments is  counterproductive. It is awkward, artificial, forced, and it devalues many dissertations.

If, as I was told, these requirements emerged because people in the humanities and the humanistic social sciences in Nigeria came up with these tyrannical requirements to deflect pressures from the government to justify the relevance of their fields then they have compounded the problem and deepened their anxieties by creating an even bigger problem than the one they were attempting to solve.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/VI1PR04MB4493850B5E94456B1715624CA6FC0%40VI1PR04MB4493.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com.

[Moses Ebe Ochonu]

A few more things:

1. I am told that the "theoretical framework" requirement for dissertations and theses was imposed on universities by the NUC and that many lecturers do not actually agree with it but have no choice but to implement it. If true, then they, too, are victims of a terrible higher education regulatory system, which would then beg the question of why a few among them have reacted so defensively to my posts on the subject. Why defend a regime or practice you don't agree with?

2. The problem is far more extensive than my posts have captured. The result of these formulaic and uniform dissertation requirements is that you pick up the average Nigerian PhD or Masters thesis and you realize that there is only one substantive chapter containing original research and analysis.  The rest is just fluff--chapters dealing with research questions, research statement, literature review, methodology, theoretical framework, conclusion, and appendix. Then you ask: where is the meat, where is the dissertation? I have done external examination and promotion evaluation and have seen this problem.

3. A related vexing problem is another requirement for all social science and humanities dissertations: they have to have a section on "policy implications." I have encountered this in history, English, sociology, philosophy, political science, and mass communication dissertations when the topic is not a policy-oriented one. Again, as with the "theoretical framework" issue, the blanket imposition of the requirement regardless of topic, discipline, research questions, and arguments is  counterproductive. It is awkward, artificial, forced, and it devalues many dissertations.

If, as I was told, these requirements emerged because people in the humanities and the humanistic social sciences in Nigeria came up with these tyrannical requirements to deflect pressures from the government to justify the relevance of their fields then they have compounded the problem and deepened their anxieties by creating an even bigger problem than the one they were attempting to solve.

On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 1:21 AM OLAYINKA AGBETUYI <yagb...@hotmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/VI1PR04MB4493850B5E94456B1715624CA6FC0%40VI1PR04MB4493.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com.

[Toyin Falola]

Moses:

Not an African-only issue! Education is a money making industry!! in the UK you get your Masters in one year. Everything is aligned to the market and how to make money.

To make money you create a readable structure.

TF

Sent from my iPhone

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/CAAHJfPoGGxmxTZCE69mRpApsJetS%2BBJkDBew6O0%3DmpLpdfHJ9A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Moses Ebe Ochonu]

You're right Oga Falola. In the Facebook discussion of the issue, several Nigerians who studied in India and Malaysia pointed out that that it is also a problem those countries. One in particular, whom I know, is now doing a second PhD in an American university after completing the first one in Malaysia. He says when he looks at his Malaysia PhD dissertation now he is embarrassed. The  common denominator here seems to be the British/colonial factor, although the Ethiopia one is surprising, since there was no British colonization there.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/1644DE0B-DE5C-4A3A-84D2-01A6EC281177%40austin.utexas.edu.

[OLAYINKA AGBETUYI]

Moses:

Like the Chief just said it is not a Nigerian or African problem but well high global. The UK final year dissertation I supervised was structured throughout on theories on the schools of thought on historiographies of the Russian Revolution.  He had no clue how to go about it without my intervention  Since I took him right from GCSEs (O Levels) I took it as a badge of honour to conclude what I started

.  But I disagree with the chief its helping the discipline of History bring in money globally as it does in America.  On the contrary it helps the American chapter bring in money  precisely because at the undergraduate level such 'tyranny' is not enforced AND taking history is enforced for ALL students two factors not present in the UK.  So fewer people take history courses in the UK even from the A/L stage where the standards are jerked up to undergraduate standards meaning less money for the discipline.

I will again illustrate the problem with a young Irish lady who was in the undergraduate History final year this time last year.  I was teaching her another subject but approached me for assistance on the same issue because she had no clue what to do.  My involvement was not as deep as the other fellow but I talked her through what to do.  She had to prolong her graduation by an extra term just for that purpose.

As she was putting the finishing touches to the write up I asked her what she wanted to do next get a Masters to deepen her knowledge in History or go for a postgraduate teaching certificate to teach in the high school?

Nope!  She  had enough.  She would rather open a beauty salon!  Another loss to the History profession.  Remember she originally entered the discipline out of pure love and interest and not because she was required to take a single history course as part of the education and she chose to major in it.

OAA

Get Outlook for Android

---

From: usaafric...@googlegroups.com <usaafric...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Toyin Falola <toyin...@austin.utexas.edu>
Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2019 8:35:00 PM

To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - The Academic Nonsense of"Theoretical Framework"

This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (toyin...@austin.utexas.edu) Add cleanup rule | More info

Moses:

Not an African-only issue! Education is a money making industry!! in the UK you get your Masters in one year. Everything is aligned to the market and how to make money.

To make money you create a readable structure.

TF

Sent from my iPhone

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/CAAHJfPoGGxmxTZCE69mRpApsJetS%2BBJkDBew6O0%3DmpLpdfHJ9A%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.

--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDial...@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 usaafricadialo...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/1644DE0B-DE5C-4A3A-84D2-01A6EC281177%40austin.utexas.edu.

[OLAYINKA AGBETUYI]

Moses

Your 'meat" summarized my own consternation when I was doing my History Masters. Half of the course was done examining and critiquing theories that I waited and waited wondering when the'meaty' historical section I understood as history would come.

You guessed correctly about the policy issue.  Government probably thought university teachers are a lazy unproductive lot and they need to justify every amount spent in the face of dwindling resources

OAA

---

From: usaafric...@googlegroups.com <usaafric...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Moses Ebe Ochonu <meoc...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2019 7:55:10 PM
To: USAAfricaDialogue

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

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

A few more things:

1. I am told that the "theoretical framework" requirement for dissertations and theses was imposed on universities by the NUC and that many lecturers do not actually agree with it but have no choice but to implement it. If true, then they, too, are victims of a terrible higher education regulatory system, which would then beg the question of why a few among them have reacted so defensively to my posts on the subject. Why defend a regime or practice you don't agree with?

2. The problem is far more extensive than my posts have captured. The result of these formulaic and uniform dissertation requirements is that you pick up the average Nigerian PhD or Masters thesis and you realize that there is only one substantive chapter containing original research and analysis.  The rest is just fluff--chapters dealing with research questions, research statement, literature review, methodology, theoretical framework, conclusion, and appendix. Then you ask: where is the meat, where is the dissertation? I have done external examination and promotion evaluation and have seen this problem.

3. A related vexing problem is another requirement for all social science and humanities dissertations: they have to have a section on "policy implications." I have encountered this in history, English, sociology, philosophy, political science, and mass communication dissertations when the topic is not a policy-oriented one. Again, as with the "theoretical framework" issue, the blanket imposition of the requirement regardless of topic, discipline, research questions, and arguments is  counterproductive. It is awkward, artificial, forced, and it devalues many dissertations.

If, as I was told, these requirements emerged because people in the humanities and the humanistic social sciences in Nigeria came up with these tyrannical requirements to deflect pressures from the government to justify the relevance of their fields then they have compounded the problem and deepened their anxieties by creating an even bigger problem than the one they were attempting to solve.

On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 1:21 AM OLAYINKA AGBETUYI <yagb...@hotmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/VI1PR04MB4493850B5E94456B1715624CA6FC0%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 USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDial...@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 usaafricadialo...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/CAAHJfPo4PGmsEvn%3DC%3DD5Q%3DL35ZUrz%2BSmmJHzVCaOL_38YFnt6w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Emeagwali, Gloria (History)]

"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. "

Agreed. 

Professor Gloria Emeagwali
History Department, Central Connecticut State University
www.africahistory.net

http://web.ccsu.edu/afstudy/archive.html

Chief Editor- "Africa Update"

www.vimeo.com/gloriaemeagwali

Gloria Emeagwali's Documentaries

2014 Distinguished Research Excellence Award in African Studies

 University of Texas at Austin

2019   Distinguished Africanist Award                   

New York African Studies Association

 

---

From: usaafric...@googlegroups.com <usaafric...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of OLAYINKA AGBETUYI <yagb...@hotmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 7:01 PM
To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com <usaafric...@googlegroups.com>

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

 

Please be cautious: **External Email**

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/VI1PR04MB4493EA2F6C2926150753E695A6FD0%40VI1PR04MB4493.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com.

[Biko Agozino]

Ent?

Biko

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/DM6PR01MB37377A7DA60936EB12B3B31FDEC10%40DM6PR01MB3737.prod.exchangelabs.com.