I find Bill's comments very helpful. However I'd like to consider his
observation that :
if I'm a fifth grade teacher, I
teach, I don't do theory.
Maybe, but it is more precise to say that they don't do theory explication.
They do have a tacit theory in use, and they do do theory development when
they modify their practice in the light of experience. So I would argue that
the difference is between "theory is practice" (the research scientist) and
"theory AS practice" (the 5th grade teacher). In the latter case theory
building is not a systematic field of action, and it is built without
adequate rigour. But it is nevertheless socially situated and grounded in
professional conversation, and therefore it is theory that is strongly
rooted in culture rather than in a positivistic intent.
This is important to us when it comes to Bill's example of the computer
technician. Here Bill's 'theory v. practice' becomes highly relevant. In the
workplace deskilling and automation has as one of its purposes the removal
of as much need for theory - even implict theory - as possible in the
division of labour. But, perversely, the drive towards the 'knowledge
economy' and 'growth through innovation' requires exactly the opposite -
that more and more employees are able to explicate theory so that they can
consciously apply it to novel situations. This contradiction is, in my view,
a fundamental issue for both the organisation of work, and for understanding
one of the purposes of schooling.
So I guess I am suggesting that there are four broad categories needed to
describe the relationship between theory and practice, and which are
necessary to meet the challenges Bill presents at the end of his message:
Theory v. practice - where the work is designed to eliminate the need for
any theory use in practice (the deskilled process worker on an automated
production line)
Theory as practice - where the work is of a kind that the worker must
develop tacit theories through engagement in practice - experience based
theory building (teachers as characterised by Bill)
Theory in practice - where the work is of a kind that requires the worker to
achieve goals through the use of explicit theory applied to novel problems
(medical workers, industrial designers)
Theory is practice - where the goal of the work itself is the development of
robust theory (academic research scientists).
That typology doesn't quite work, and they may all be present in any given
practice, but it is where my thinking about Bill's message has taken me.
Phillip Capper,
Centre for Research on Work, Education and Business Ltd. (WEB Research),
Level 13
114 The Terrace
(PO Box 2855)
WELLINGTON
New Zealand
Ph: +64 4 499 8140
Fx: +64 4 499 8395
Mb: +64 021 519 741
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Barowy [mailto:wbarowy@attbi.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 14 August 2002 4:39 a.m.
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: Theory vs practice or theory is practice?
Did someone mention that theory is a practice? Theory is what theorists do.
There are three things that fall out of thinking of theory as a practice.
First, it addresses the ideological/identity barrier of what constitutes
what
a person does in life/for a living. So, if I'm a fifth grade teacher, I
teach, I don't do theory.
Second, thinking so addresses the issue that practice of theory consumes an
ecological resource -- time. So again, if I'm a fifth grade teacher who
must
address the state scores on reading and mathematics, as well as do the
10,000
other things that my job demands, I don't have time for theory either.
Third, like the practice of let's say, computer technician, the practice
comes replete with a technical discourse, an ensemble of routines, a
diffuse
set of wartofskian artifacts, i.e. conceptual toolkits and texts, etc. So
while cognition-in-head'ers would focus on the abstraction of theory as a
barrier to be addressed by mediated development, I'd like to consider that
more generally as the theory-as-practice barrier to be addressed by
mediated
development.
It's not to say that i think the practice of doing theory should not become
part of teaching practice, or that there are no solutions for making this
happen. But I do think the situation of making education more inclusive of
theory will benefit by using the theoretical tools we have, and consequently
by looking at the tensions that exist between the extant system and that of
the future.
Anyway, this is how i've been thinking of things lately and would like to
push against this way of thinking -- really kick it around, so if anyone has
suggestions for who has troddent this or similar ground (Mehan comes to
mind)
or would simply like to argue ( in a discussive way), it would be very much
appreciated.
Sorry, I can't seem to read xmca without putting in two cents.
bb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 01 2002 - 01:00:06 PDT