Theory and practice

The interplay between kitchen and page

This is the free version of my newsletter. If you want to support my writing, please consider a paid subscription for yourself or a gift subscription for a friend.
You can also join me on Patreon!

If you can’t afford the paid newsletter, but it would be an asset to you in your own culinary/writing/creative journey, please reach out and we’ll figure something out!

Springtime in Atlanta is truly magical. Seemingly overnight, new green growth bursts forth, a hopeful sign of warmer weather, and the sunlight hits the leaves in a way that seems to almost make them glow with their own light. Though we rarely get snow, I feel more in tune with the seasons here, whether because of where I’m at in my own personal journey, or the climate in Georgia, or both.

This year, I’m feeling especially connected to our seasons as cyclical and interwoven, and since springtime is often a time where my mind is eager to run and explore after the more restful winter months, I’ve been ended up spending a good deal of time thinking about interconnection in general.

I actively seek out connections between different ideas or industries we might not think to put together: It was the inspiration behind starting the Unplated interview series, and behind my own career that has led me through everything from bus driving to curating a rare book museum to working as a professor to managing a coffeehouse. All of these are interconnected in my world: There are valuable lessons to learn from each that can be, and are, regularly applied to the work I do today. For me, it’s the intersection of theory and practice: my research in academia and otherwise, connected with and informed by the other work I do.

Head and Hands

My idea of theory and practice has shifted somewhat since my days as a PhD student: In that world, the theories I worked with were situated within the scholarly discourse a specific discipline (though they could definitely be applied outside of it, something I’ll write about at some point in relation to food).

Practice was the work being done in the field (in this case, librarians and other information professionals), informed by professional standards and best practices but not always explicitly driven by theoretical frameworks, on the surface at least.

I’m a strong believer in the fact that our work, whatever it may be, is constantly informed by theory, and informs that theory in turn. This is particularly true in the kinds of fields I gravitate towards, whether in food or libraries, where a strong practice-based component is central to the work of that discipline. I am constantly seeking to unravel what theory and practice look like in each space I move within, but most importantly to understand their interplay.

Depending on what we’re studying, our definitions of theory and practice are likely to shift: As researchers, theories and models are carefully developed and operationalized (this book, shared with me by Michelle Kazmer early in my doctorate, is a fantastic resource for understanding theory building, and the difference between theories and models).

In the kitchen (or library), our concept of theory might expand a bit to include other undergirding principles, but we’re still guided by something in whatever work we do. In other words, we are always performing practice, but we’re always enacting and testing theory, too. But so often, we see the artificial separation between these two forms of engagement in our discourse: As though they are two completely different things, rather than two sides of the same coin.

I see the two as cyclical, in constant conversation with each other. Theory, whether a formalized theoretical framework or simply the philosophy behind our work, undergirds our practice. But practice, the putting of ideas into action, in turn helps us refine theory. In a perfect world, the two build on each other. Theory and practice mirror each other, but also help us to question our current approach with a critical eye so it can become even better.

In my library work and Library & Information Science research, this divide between theory and practice was at times palpable, other times more muted, though most people understand that the two are connected. This artificial divide was often present, though, in conversations around education and professionalism in particular (why learn theory when we can just learn how to use this one database we need?)  
(I have a whole rant about the shortsightedness of this approach, which I’ll happily spill out over drinks, but will spare you from here).

Theory and Practice On our Plates

When I returned to the food world, I felt like most fellow writers and researchers would echo my constant refrain of “theory undergirds practice! practice informs theory!” The work we do is often interdisciplinary and informed by practice to varying extents and, at this point at least, there is an increasing recognition of the need to contextualize our work: Thinking about food, and writing about food, never happen in a vacuum.

But when we think of the theory and practice of food writing within its historical context something interesting happens. Though other fields like Anthropology have included food as a component of a larger discipline, Food Studies itself is a relatively recent phenomenon. For much of history, food was not a central subject of study, cast aside as inconsequential, both as a subject of study itself and because of the marginalized statuses of many cooks and food producers.