Theory is king? But first,what is theory?

摘要

Avison and Malaurent (2014) offer the confessional ethnography of Schultze (2000) as an illustration of 'theory light' (a term that they invent) to serve as a contrast to 'theory is king' (a term, coined by Straub, 2009, that has taken on a life of its own, the underlying concept of which Avison and Malaurent call into question). At the same time, without much difficulty, one could just as readily interpret Schultze's confessional ethnography as an illustration of 'theory rich' and thereby fashion an argument that Schultze's confessional ethnography indeed follows what has become the edict that 'theory is king' (assuming that one were to subscribe to this edict in the first place). How one interprets Schultze's confessional ethnography vis-a-vis the 'theory is king' edict depends, of course, on what one's conception of 'theory' is. In this commentary, I will discuss 'what theory is,' ramifications of 'what theory is' for Schultze's confessional ethnography, and ramifications of 'what theory is' for 'theory is king.'