Do We Need More Productive Theorizing? A Commentary

Abstract

In this commentary, we argue that literacy research would be more productive if researchers had a clearer, more nuanced understanding of theory. Specifically, we argue that theory in a practice‐oriented field is most fundamentally productive when it provides instrumental guidance for literacy beyond academic understanding about literacy. Premises for that argument are presented, as well as how productivity connects to an instrumental view of theory within the philosophy of science. We provide examples from authoritative sources and relevant studies suggesting that conceptions and uses of theory in literacy research are ambiguous, diffuse, and incoherent. We argue that productivity could be a unifying construct to ameliorate those limitations. To stimulate discussion about theory, we propose several ways that theorizing might be more productive. Those proposals comprise a critique of theorizing in the field and illustrate how more productive theorizing could close the gap between research and practice. Finally, we discuss how our proposals might be implemented in the field’s research.

Diseño para la elaboración los Planes de Apoyos Personales en el ámbito de la discapacidad intelectual

“…Actualmente, es una opción cada vez más frecuente incluir directamente a los profesionales en las diversas fases que configuran una investigación (Chaparro et al, 2020;McKenzie et al, 2021). De igual manera, vale la pena enfatizar, como ya se hace en varios ámbitos académicos, que las teorías o conocimientos serán productivos cuando tengan un efecto (positivo) en las personas y en la sociedad (Reinking y Yaden, 2021). Una teoría tiene impacto cuando proporciona orientaciones suficientemente concretas que permiten guiar las prácticas y políticas de su propio campo.…”

Legislating Phonics: Settled Science or Political Polemics?

“…During the 1980s and 1990s, whole language emerged as a distinctly different approach to teaching children to read. Although grounded in psycholinguistic theory and analyses of how children constructed meaning while reading texts, it was referred to and promoted as a theory, perspective, philosophy, movement, or set of principles (see Reinking & Yaden, 2021). It gained some, mainly grassroots, influence (Goodman, 1986), although it precipitated no widespread systematic implementation and virtually no legislative support (California being a controversial exception; see Krashen, 2002).…”

Chasing Shadows: Why There Cannot be a “Simple” Science of Literacy

“…While methodologically it is important to do more sophisticated quantitative and qualitative research, it is perhaps more important for those of us studying the trajectory of literacy growth over time to have a more nuanced and powerful theory to explain how human beings develop (cf., Reinking & Yaden, 2021; Tomasello, 2019; Yaden et al, 2014).…”