Academic common room
Insufficient theoretical contribution
woodington · 29/04/2021 09:52
Hi all! I am in desperate need of a reminder that it's not just me! Just had two journal papers rejected in a row - both with really quite generous reviews, which said they are very well written, important and interesting subject, etc ... but the theoretical contribution is not sufficiently strong. I do most of my writing as a single author (I've been useless at developing strong writing partnerships) and I'm in a pit of despond. Can anyone tell me this is normal? I know it is, really ... is it? Do those of you who publish a lot also get this response? It would comfort me if so! (And, do you have any tips on developing theoretical contributions 
)?!
DrGilbertson · 29/04/2021 10:12
Yup, I have had a rejection for this. Really depends on the journal. Go for more applied journals in the field (where I had a paper rejects for being too theoretical)
woodington · 29/04/2021 10:32
Thanks DrGilbertson. Yes, just looking around for another journal that might be better and thinking how to reframe it ... but, grrrrr.
parietal · 30/04/2021 11:48
find the right journal for your paper. sometimes it helps to find a journal that has published similar papers & make that case in your cover letter. e.g. cover letter says
YourFancyJournal published excellent papers by XX and YY in 2018 and my paper builds on this approach to examine ...
Fondizone · 03/05/2021 18:50
Can you do any changes to improve contribution? Otherwise you'll need to gradually go down the list of journals (try to address at least some of the reviewer comments even when you submit to a different journal though. I keep getting the same paper to review from different journals and get annoyed when authors don't change anything at all, it's a small world often!). ... It is perfectly normal to be rejected multiple times, don't worry!
woodington · 04/05/2021 09:10
Thanks all. And thanks Fondizone for the reminder on rejection. I am feeling quite despondent on this Tuesday morning but know I need to persevere with this. The editors have said they think the subject is important and the work is interesting so that is encouraging.
Sometimes I think my basic orientation towards academia is a bit ... wrong. My area is sociology and the paper shows that something we know happens elsewhere, also happens in this particular context - and shows how it happens. So it makes an empirical contribution I guess. In order to make a stronger theoretical contribution, I think I am going to have to take quite a small detail and somehow isolate or amplify that.
I can't help thinking that the basic but nevertheless worthwhile empirical point (that this thing that happens, happens here too - but has gone unnoticed, until now) then gets a bit lost! Put another way, if something largely confirms existing theory then it goes unpublished, even if it is empirically interesting and important. Not sure if any of that makes sense ...
Duplobuplo · 09/05/2021 19:17
This happens a lot in my discipline. The key thing is to pinpoint the contributions very very clearly up front and make sure your discussion really talks about how your findings extend the theory rather than just reiterating the findings again in a different format. For example does your empirical context provide a greater understanding of how the theory does or does not work? It's usually just a matter of phrasing and hammering home the point all the way through the paper.
woodington · 10/05/2021 09:32
Thanks @duplobuplo - I think the trouble is, my data really shows how a very well known theory works very well in this specific context. I can't see much in my data which contradicts the theory or builds on it. What it does, is to show that this thing that happens, happens in this context, which is not in itself especially unexpected, but has not yet really been articulated. I almost need this to be articulated first, in order to then make more sophisticated points - for example, to think not just how it happens, but why ... it's more difficult to do the latter until the former has been more firmly established. I think I'll have to think of some way to add something to the 'how' which makes a contribution. Somehow!
ghislaine · 11/05/2021 16:24
Could you say that your work fills an empirical gap which is a necessary foundation for the theoretical work? You are also showing the reach /scope/boundary of the theory - might this have been anticipated by the theorists, or was it something they were silent on? Might your findings have implications for the applicability of the theory in other areas?
NoviceGardenLady · 18/05/2021 15:46
Hello OP.
I'm a sociology academic too. The need for theoretical contribution is infuriating because not every piece of research makes a huge contribution to a theoretical position in terms of moving it on, disproving it, or looking at it differently. But that doesn't mean that the research isn't interesting and worth doing.
The other issue I find is that everyone interprets theory different or reads different bits of theory. So I've had papers rejected because I've not analysed a particular theoretical take that I've not even heard of/come across.
I really struggled with this in the first three or four years of my career post-PhD. Some of my work didn't particularly have anything theoretically new to say (because of a saturated field) but in other work I was trying to over-claim a theoretical contribution that mightn't have been as significant as I was claiming.
So, I struggled to publish decent quality papers. I took three different approaches roughly in this order:
Firstly, I published in more applied journals where my research wasn't making huge theoretical contributions. Or I published communications/commentary type papers that need less theoretical depth. I knew that this approach wouldn't get me promoted and would raise eyebrows in the long-run but I didn't care. My perspective was that a published paper in a poorer journal is better than data just sitting on my USB stick.
Secondly, I abandoned a couple of papers which I think did make good theoretical contributions but where these theoretical contributions weren't as significant as I was claiming. These papers kept getting pushed back because I hadn't read so-and-so's paper (always a different so-and-so each fucking time!). These papers were depressing me. I had a heavy heart when I'd sit down to engage with them so I just gave up on them and it was wonderful. I've never gone back to them. I've had new data to work with so I've not needed to.
Thirdly, I took a very pragmatic approach to theory engagement and contribution. For each paper I wrote/write, I choose one/two theoretical lenses and I use those theories as the basis for my paper (i.e. to show how my paper advances that perspective or disagrees with it). Sometimes the advances that my papers make are really really minor, like miniscule. But as long as you can say they advance that particular theoretical perspective in some way, you're generally fine. This approach means that I don't have a theoretical 'home' and I use theory fairly eclectically and quite cynically but my approach is that it gets the papers out so who cares?!
I also co-author a lot more than I used to and that's been wonderful. Sometimes we're just too close to our work to see where it's missing things. Even research that I've done alone, I've emailed people and asked for some assistance in exchange for authorship (not in those terms!!) and most of the time people have said yes. This is people I know by the way although randomers might do so too. I would 
If you have critical friends, mentors or even former supervisors you should ask them to read your work and give you some tips.
Do you mind me asking what area of sociology are you in?
NoviceGardenLady · 18/05/2021 15:59
@woodington
This is a very good way of approaching the theoretical contribution.
Might you be able to argue/show that the 'how' of the thing that happens is very specific in your context or group so, therefore, the theory that you're working with needs to integrate the specifics of the 'how' in your context (and potentially others)? It's hard to comment without knowing the specifics of the thing, the theory and the how.
DrGilbertson · 18/05/2021 21:04
I love "through the lens of" statements. Sounds good, but just means I am going to think about stuff.
(Unless you are a journal editor reading this - in which case it represents a full theoretical framework for the analysis I am proposing)
woodington · 19/05/2021 08:36
Hi everybody. Thanks so much for all your comments.
@novicegardenlady - I don't mind saying what sort of sociology - it's mainly sociology of work, labour market inequalities, that kind of thing. Still a bit vague I know but you get the idea.
There are some really great ideas here, thank you. I have thought about trying to get this into a more applied journal but those that I can find have incredibly short wordcounts for a qualitative paper. I do need more critical friends I think and more co-authors - I have had co-authors but have found they don't always do a lot of co-authoring in the sense of actually writing.
I have a feeling I will get this data published - rejections have been encouraging and suggested it is important. That is a bit frustrating because if it's empirically important then I just wish the theoretical contribution didn't have to be so strong! But one thing I am struggling with is that I seem to be so slow! I only have two or three papers on the go at a time and given rejections it can take them ages to get published. How do people keep up what looks like a steady stream? That's my next question!
NoviceGardenLady · 19/05/2021 09:41
@woodington
*@novicegardenlady* - I don't mind saying what sort of sociology - it's mainly sociology of work, labour market inequalities, that kind of thing. Still a bit vague I know but you get the idea.
There are some really great ideas here, thank you. I have thought about trying to get this into a more applied journal but those that I can find have incredibly short wordcounts for a qualitative paper. I do need more critical friends I think and more co-authors - I have had co-authors but have found they don't always do a lot of co-authoring in the sense of actually writing.
I have a feeling I will get this data published - rejections have been encouraging and suggested it is important. That is a bit frustrating because if it's empirically important then I just wish the theoretical contribution didn't have to be so strong! But one thing I am struggling with is that I seem to be so slow! I only have two or three papers on the go at a time and given rejections it can take them ages to get published. How do people keep up what looks like a steady stream? That's my next question!
You don't just have to look at applied journals which can have shorter word counts but also 'lower quality' journals too which have a higher rate of acceptance. A paper 'out' is better than nothing.
It's good that you've been encouraged by the reviewers. One of my mentors once said to me 'Listen to what the reviewers are telling you' and it was such useful advice. It's really simple but it does make you wonder how your research is read to a complete outsider.
I only have two or three papers on the go at a time and given rejections it can take them ages to get published. How do people keep up what looks like a steady stream? That's my next question!
One or two on the go at any one time is absolutely fine. If you look at a lot of people who have a 'steady stream' they will often be second, third, fourth author on those papers. So while it might look like they're constantly publishing, some of their papers might only have taken a day or two of their time to work on.
There might be other reasons why they're publishing steadily - they might be in a really sexy area at the moment, they might be working day and night on their papers, one of their parents might be an academic giving them help. You don't know. Plus, some people have just 'got it' - they know exactly how to frame/shape and write papers very naturally.
I would say it's much better to concentrate on one or two papers, getting them to a good standard and getting them out than trying to be across multiple papers at the same time.
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.