"Using theories" and "doing theory": tool and action orientations to theory at the interface of public health and anthropology.

The use of "theory" is a common concern in public health and anthropology. However, the term can have quite distinct meanings. In this piece, we seek to name and characterize some tendencies in anthropological theorizing that contribute to potential misunderstandings when communicating with non-anthropologist colleagues in public health. In particular, we highlight differences between the use of recognizable, named "theories" that often explicitly frame public health research and interventions, and the open-ended and context-specific work of "doing theory" sometimes referenced in anthropology. Observing the linguistic shifts entailed to refer to theory in each of these cases-"using theories" versus "doing theory"-we differentiate between "tool" and "action" orientations to theory. We then examine three case vignettes of engagements with "tool" orientations to institutionalized theories, and with "action" orientations to context-tailored theorizing in real-world public health interventions, showing how anthropologists have navigated these orientations. We close by emphasizing the benefits of epistemic diversity for interdisciplinary public health research and interventions.