SOME DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE ORIENTATION OF THEORISTS AND PRACTITIONERS

Inevitable differences in the theory and practice orientations can lead to mis­understanding and alienation if these inherent differences are not understood. In many disciplines of the natural as well as social sciences, the “scientist” and the “practitioner” tend to stereotype each other: the scientist viewing the prac­titioner as “unscientific” and the practitioner considering the scientist to be “impractical.” In the hope of fostering mutual respect and understanding of each other’s orientation, we contrast several aspects of each orientation.

The Analytical Versus the Synthetic Approach

The practitioner must synthesize the knowledge from many theories and research studies; she must make a collage or mosaic of many theoretical ideas of the kind presented in this book rather than relying on any single one. In contrast, the theorist-researcher generates knowledge by analysis and isolation of the object of inquiry; the focus is often narrowly defined. Breadth of theo­retical knowledge is more important for the practitioner than precision, consis­tency, or elegance, although the opposite is true for the theoretically oriented researcher. Moreover, because there are no well-established procedures for com­bining theories to fit them to a given practical problem, practitioners must often work intuitively without being able to specify precisely how they are weaving together the theoretical ideas employed. In contrast, the pressure on theorist­researchers is to be explicit and specific about their ideas and procedures.

The Skeptical Versus the Pragmatic

The practitioner is rewarded if what he does “works” even if his practice is not grounded in well-established knowledge. Moreover, he is usually more persua­sive and effective if he has a positive, confident attitude about what he is doing and recommending. The scientist, on the other hand, knows very well that the path of progress in science is littered with discarded theories, and honor goes to those who help to determine the well-established ones. Thus, it is no won­der that the professional stance of the theorist-researcher is hesitant, self-critical, and skeptical toward the theory and research that social technologists often use with a confident attitude.

Enduring Versus Useful Truths

The theorist has the (rarely achieved) aim of developing knowledge that is uni­versally true; enduringly valid for different times and places, and relevant for understanding cave people as well as astronauts, aborigines in Kakadu as well as Park Avenue sophisticates. Such theoretical knowledge is usually general and abstract, and developing its implications for specific situations requires consid­erable additional thought and effort. The scientist is especially interested in developing the surprising and thus interesting implications of a theory because its validity and generality seem enhanced by the ability to predict the unexpected.

In contrast, the practitioner is necessarily concerned with the mundane and practical, namely, with those aspects of a specific situation that can be altered with minimum cost to produce the desired consequence. Her interest is more focused on the here and now, on the concrete aspects of the situation in which she has to work, rather than on the general and abstract. Of course, the practitioner also seeks to have general knowledge of the kind of situation and type of people with whom her model of intervention is effective, but the focus of attention is on what can be done to produce the desired effects. In practical work, it is more important to know that a child’s ability to learn may be improved more easily and economically by changing motivation rather than by modifying genes, even though the child’s genes may play an important role in determining the ability to learn.