First, we duly recognize that discursive theory, dominant in sociology, does not admit of formal theory construction on the grounds that this is deductive reasoning that relies upon wicked little unstated assumptions that have failed in the past to take multiple perspectives into account and failed to examine reflexively its own premises. All the theory we have written has fallen into the discursive model. Giddens is our model. He abhors formal theory, believes it a waste of time. Because formal theory construction represents a validity claim for the discipline that deserves a hearing in good faith, as those of us denied such hearings have also demanded, sometimes of the formal theorists themselves.
Nothing is value-free.
But that does not clear those who privileged their own subjectivity in the past of the accusation that their premises were built on unstated and unacknowledged assumptions that privileged them. Want to bring in Coavaleski on this, the stultifying effect of disciplinary power. But I also want to dig out formal theory construction and use what we can of it to clarify the narrative of learning identity. I believe that we can construct some formal theory, just as Glaser suggests, from the grounded approach we continue to use. Recognition of solidly developed tools for thinking our way through complex issues is a far different activity from denying the need to listen in good faith to freely associated narrative that may need all our skill to see the larger patterns it is straining to make fit and the claims that need to be voiced and heard.