Elaborating the Theory – Practice Space : Professional Competence in Science , Therapy , Consulting and Education

Theory seems to be increasingly considered as something that is “nice to have” in the so-called ivory tower of knowledge, but not enormously necessary or helpful for effective decisions in the everyday rat race of occupational pressure Even universities, the very institutions where theory used to be the foundation of all curricula, are increasingly confronted with the call for more practice-oriented study programmes In education for professions like medicine, law, business, architecture or – last, but not least – the all-time favourite in this debate, teaching, the value of practice has conti nued to gain strength, while theory seems to be increasingly losing its appeal Where concepts of technical rationality reign, research-based theory has long been considered the relevant resource to inform practice, and elaborate techniques based on theory regarded as the instruments to resolve practical problems These ideas have been shattered by the fact that by the time theory reaches the practitioner in our fast-changing knowledge society, it seems to have already lost its novel impact Thus, the complexities and pressures of a fast-changing world have shattered the research-to-practice model that long dominated the sciences and the professions in particular Today, a focus on “what works” and on short-term effects is regarded among practitioners as more rewarding than well-grounded theoretical long-term visions More over, serious research does not provide simple answers to increasingly complex questions and, thus, often appears too abstract and too untrustworthy to practitioners as a practical guide In this article, I argue that the current doubts regarding the potential of theory to resolve practical problems are based on a misunderstanding of the relation between theory and practice This misunderstanding is the result of a technical concept of theory as the direct instruction for practice and L i c e n s e d t o I l s e S c h r i t t e s s e r 745 The Theory–Practice Space in the Professions: Casework as the Missing Link Challenging Organisations and Society a concept of practice which is completely dependent on theoretical knowledge, a view which Bourdieu refers to as an illusion which “objectivism has to construct in order to constitute the social world as a system of objective relations independent of individual consciousnesses and wills” (Bourdieu 1977, p 4) On the other side of the coin is the concept of practice as a realm of its own, one in which tacit knowledge reigns and which is too fragilely aligned to theory to favour a reliable relationship Given the increasing complexity of practical problems, the concept of technical rationality has proved too instrumental, too one-dimensional and, consequently, less helpful than expected The second concept, i e practice as a realm of its own, can be seen as a counter-reaction which claims the quasi-independence of practical solutions from theory, dismissing the latter as too abstract, too esoteric and too inefficient when immediate practical solutions are required In contrast, practice theorists like Pierre Bourdieu have tried to complexify the theory-practice relationship as a dialectical pattern where neither one nor the other has the lead (cf Bourdieu 1977, 1979) Likewise, Anthony Giddens ’ structuration theory also offers an alternative approach to this question (Giddens 1984) Bourdieu’s concept is governed by the notion of habitus, a set of dispositions as a product of history resulting in particular practices According to Bourdieu, it has to be understood as a “system of durable, transposable dispositions, structured structures predisposed to function as structuring structures, that is, as principles which generate and organise practices and representations ” (Bourdieu 1990, p 53) Carrying both practical knowledge and structural properties, the habitus is a generative phenomenon expanding in response to new situations, yet only within certain boundaries It is an open system subjected to experiences which either reinforce or modify its structures (cf Bourdieu & Wacquant 1992, p 133) By defining the habitus as the medium through which social reality is created and recreated, Bourdieu offers an alter native to the traditional dichotomy between objectivism and subjectivism, between a concept of practice as application of theory and a “what works” idea of practice L i c e n s e d t o I l s e S c h r i t t e s s e r 746 Ilse Schrittesser Challenging Organisations and Society Giddens’ structuration theory is based on a similar assumption Social r eality, according to Giddens, is based on the production and reproduction of its structures by human agents who enact and interpret given structures, which are both constraining and enabling (cf Giddens 1982, 1984) “One of the main propositions of structuration theory is that the rules and resources drawn upon in the production of social action are at the same time the means of system reproduction (the duality of structure) ” (Giddens 1982, p 19 ) This means that the structural properties of social systems “are both medium and outcome of the practices they recursively organize ” (ibid , p 25) In this way, Bourdieu and Giddens, among other practice theorists, have created a novel approach to the objectivist-subjectivist battle and, through this, help to redefine the theory-practice relationship as a dialectical pattern in which practice fertilises theory just as much as theory can give new meaning to practical knowledge For the professions – and the notion of professional expertise in particular – the practice-as-applied-theory model has proved too shallow and has led to a crisis of confidence in professional knowledge A complete understanding of professionalism requires an understanding of the indeterminate zones of practice, the “micro-practices” (Kanes 2010, p 9), how they relate to knowledge, and how knowledge, in turn, relates to professional expertise Practice in such an approach has to be essentially understood in the plural, i e as “practices”, insofar as it involves the varying social interactions between the professional and his/her clients, who should not be perceived as objects to be operated on but as “co-participants in practice” (Kemmis 2010, p 145) Against this background, the relation between theory and practice in the professions also presents itself as a structured and structuring space, defining and re-defining theory from the practical case perspective Theory, in turn, represents the horizon before which the various practical decisions must be tested and justified As a result, we can neither reduce practice to applied theory nor dispense with theory in favour of mere practical effectiveness and a “what works” philosophy The reason this idea has not found adequate recognition either with practitioners or in the discourse on the professions L i c e n s e d t o I l s e S c h r i t t e s s e r 747 The Theory–Practice Space in the Professions: Casework as the Missing Link Challenging Organisations and Society may well have to do with the functional perspective on the professions that prevails in the sociology of professions on the one hand and with the increasing complexity in professional practice on the other However, the role of professions in society is not – as is assumed in some accounts of professionalism – merely to apply expert knowledge Nor can professionals simply rely on “what works” A professional has to draw not only on research-based knowledge but also on a repertoire of skills that fosters case sensitivity (cf Kanes, 2010, p 6) In addition to their domainspecific expertise, professionals are supposed to comprehend and judge every individual case as unique in its own right based on an ethical code to which each professional is expected to adhere and which is in line with their contract with society (cf Stichweh 1996, Oevermann 1996) The potential of the individual case lies in the narrative it offers and in its interpretation by the professional Theory serves as a magnifying glass through which the individual case is examined by drawing on its findings The idiosyncratic language of the case – its uniqueness – works on the other hand as a test of theoretical assumptions and their robustness Over the past two decades, both study programmes at professional schools and professional development further education programmes have increasingly introduced the case study approach, not only to foster problemsolving and decision-making skills by confronting the learners with fuzzy and complex problems, but also to sensitise learners to the importance of meaning and meaning-making in the construction of the case by both the client and the professional According to the Stanford Newsletter on Teaching, for instance , the case study approach is recommended because “[c]ases can help us organize and bring to life abstract and disparate concepts by forcing students to make difficult decisions about complex human dilemmas ” (Winter 1994, p 1) Understanding casework means learning to explore a problem from various points of view and almost playfully taking on the different perspectives inherent in the narrative, while at the same time critically holding it against L i c e n s e d t o I l s e S c h r i t t e s s e r 748 Ilse Schrittesser Challenging Organisations and Society the findings of research and theory and understanding it as an example of a more general or even universal question (cf Schrittesser 2014) The specific conflict represented in a law case, for example, might then be translated into more general ethical questions of society Or take the conflict between Greece, the European Union and the International Monetary Fund as a specific case of economic expertise The different narratives of the Greek government and the representatives of the European Union and their views of the situation can be used as a starting point to discuss various approaches to a situation of economic crisis, e g austerity vs Keynesia