Why are journals so obsessed by theory?

Is this a spoof article? I think the author could do with some scholarly training if not. The history of knowledge would be a good place to start, before the author claims a fact is a fact and that description can be unbiased and truthful, that knowledge isn't power, etc etc. Yes, theory is difficult, but at least make an effort. This is scholarship, in a university, not a comic strip in a magazine.

I share many of the authors sentiments in this article, although I don't claim to have fully reached a conclusion in my own thinking. In graduate school I was not even aware of the debate acknowledged above as my professors only ever taught and assigned readings that were heavily based in a theory-driven paradigm. When I was working on a diasertation idea the first question I was always asked was "what theoretical framework are you working in, and how are you advancing it?" While I am certainly not anti-theory, the problem, as I saw it, was that published scholarship in my field often seemed to conclude with evidence that confirmed the theory that was used being applied. Additionally, when I traced publications from a single author, I found that their studies regularly supported the same theory, and found evidence disconfirming competing theories. Theory seemed to become each scholars reality. I think one aspect of the problem is the dual preference of journals for theory driven work and positive findings (because who publishes null results?). So, when you choose a theoretical framework at the beginning of a project, there is a built-in professional incentive to find supporting evidence (or switch theories to accommodate the findings). My dissertation has a question, and I want to know the answer, regardless of whether that answer supports or opposes a given theory. What I enjoy about descriptive studies is that they provide the raw material from which I - or others - can think about a subject from different theoretical frameworks. The absence of theory in the study is actually preferred, as it frees the "raw facts" from any particular framework (I recognize that, at a higher level of abstraction, there is always some "theory" present). This it not to claim that descriptive work is then somehow subservient to theoretical work, as descriptive studies can just as easily cast doubt on some specific theory. But, the relationship between the two would seem to neccesitate that both types of studies are published. Thanks for read.

Dear Sean - many thanks for your comment and many valuable insights. The training you mentioned at Grad school when it came to theory driven research is a common issue and problem. I recommend reading Michael Billig's book Learn to Write Badly - esp chapter 3 which looks at academic training and the role of choosing a theory! Also the point you made about theory essentially making researchers more myopic and less open minded about their findings is an especially significant problem in theory driven research.

Theory is necessary and indeed inevitable in advancing scholarship. But it shouldn't always be necessary to declare one's theoretical allegiance in order to advance an argument. The theory may be implicit to the kind of argument one is making. Unfortunately theory has become something of a badge of honour in a highly competitive research environment. One often needs to display one's credentials - of the right kind for the journal in question - in order to publish work. Fortunately, there are also many readers and journals who are sufficiently discriminating to know a good argument when they see it.

May I draw attention to a recent article of mine, which also addresses these issues, published in Academy of Management Learning & Education? https://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amle.2019.0255

Good point Oneiropolos and really well put and I agree with what your comment (despite my misgivings in the article)... This is something I should have included in the article but theory is great servant but a terrible master. Cheers for your comment.