Today we’ll look to epistemology to see if we can answer the question of which is more important – theory knowledge or practical knowledge.
Theory knowledge provides the legitimacy of facts, rules, and concepts founded upon research. As Schwan states, its “strength and value…lie in its generality, system, and economy” (1971, p. 62). But it is this generality which causes difficulty, for practice—in contrast—requires the concrete and particular. Unfortunately, as Schon points out, research and theory also are being increasingly criticized for not meeting “the needs and interests of professional practitioners” (1987, p. 10) and that curriculums too entrenched in theory may not adequately prepare professionals for practice in their field (1987, pp. 11-12). Schwab (1971) echoes Schon’s points with his own concerns about theoretical approaches being inadequate to helping prepare professionals to solve and apply practical solutions.
On the other hand, Schon describes how practical knowledge provides experience and skill in problem solving—resulting in the artistry by which the seasoned professional practices his trade. Practical knowledge also provides the opportunity to build what Schon terms ‘knowledge-in-action’ — the ability to apply tacit knowledge and make wise judgments in the light of new problems and situations (1987, pp. 23-25). Practical experience can also provide the opportunity for ‘reflection in action’ — a series of evaluations, learnings, and modifications that are made in the midst of practice (Schon, 1987, pp. 26-29). With these two concepts and techniques in place, the artistry of professional practice can be realized and observed.
In exploring this challenge of theory versus practice, Schwan cautions that we will perform (or practice) well only to the degree to which we consider the conditions to which the theory is to be applied. Furthermore, Schwan recommends that we not accept any single theory, but rather apply multiple theories to paint a more complete picture or more accurate assessment of a situation. Much like the scholar-practitioner model followed at Walden University, perhaps the solution lies in the enquiry cycle of learning existing theories, exploring the boundaries and limitations of those theories, and then exploring new directions through practical application.
Then to address the question of which is more important — theory knowledge or practical knowledge — perhaps we can consider that while both are important, they can successfully operate independent of one another. For example, a person can successfully acquire or apply practical knowledge without conscious knowledge of the underlying theory. At the same time, a person can successfully acquire and focus on theoretical knowledge without ever venturing into the practical knowledge. It may, however, be argued that the more defensible and rewarding method would be to blend the two approaches. As Schon states, “rigorous professional practitioners solve well-formed instrumental problems by applying [both] theory and technique” (Schon, 1987, pp. 3-4).
Another question we may want to consider is which should come first —theoretical knowledge or practical knowledge. While not wanting to digress into a chicken-or-the-egg-type debate, it could be interesting to consider which would be the best to lead with in helping others acquire new knowledge and skills. Is it best to lead with theoretical knowledge and then provide opportunity for practice based on the theory? Or is it best to lead with practice and then debrief what did and didn’t work and share potential reasons based on the theory? Perhaps the answer lies in learning theory and individual learning styles and preferences. Also perhaps a question of emphasis on theory versus practical knowledge can be answered in a matching to the desired behavioral outcome. This could be related to the concepts of ‘know how’ versus ‘know why’ being discussed in current literature. Perhaps it can also be related to cognitive levels where theory and the ability to create the tools that allow individuals to perform their task is a higher-order cognitive skill versus practical knowledge and using the knowledge to perform tasks may be at a different/lower level—or perhaps even be in the psychomotor rather than cognitive domain.
-Robin
References:
Schon, D.A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. Reprint in CoursePack at www.xanedu.com: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Schwab, J. J. (1971). The practical: Arts of eclectic. In School review (pp. 493-542). Reprint in CoursePack at www.xanedu.com: University of Chicago Press Journals.
Copyright Robin Donnan 2007. All Rights Reserved.
Performance Associates, Inc.
