Theoretical Approaches

Harris, in his response to Fain, brings up the notion of interpretive frameworks, and the ways in which his and Garrison's differ. When I read this, it reminded me of Wiegand's use of Foucault's idea of 'discursive formations' in the essay from week one. (I told myself that I was going to avoid the "F" word in this class, but there it is). How might we use the works of theorists such as Foucault, Bordieu, Gramsci, Althusser, or whomever else we might think of, to approach library history?

Would such an approach be considered appropriate by those who seek "accountability"? Or would Williams' charts be more gladly received by the accountability police?

Is there room for both? How might such a project look?

Do LIS scholars prefer one mode over the other? This is jumping ahead, but when I read Bushman last year, I was annoyed early on in the text when he writes that people in LIS really don't read Foucault and Haberman, resulting in the need for him (Buschman) to tell us all why they are important/useful. Is this really the case? I was a little insulted because I have read multiple texts by both. However, in my other program it is expected that we know them and that we know them well. I know people who, for Halloween, have actually dressed up as Discipline and Punishment. So maybe we go a little overboard. What do you think?