Relationship between Theory and Practice - Research Paper Example

 Relationship between Theory and Practice Within various fields, particularly those dealing with human services such as nursing, social work, phrases such as incorporating theory into practice and the application of theory to practice, are used routinely. This is especially the case where issues of education, guidance and the development of staff are considered (Edwards & Nicoll, 2006). This begs the question of what constitutes the relationship between theory and practice and what occurs to constitute this relationship. These are a few of the pertinent questions, which underpin the issue of this relationship. The existence, as well as use of a theoretical base of knowledge, is ardently linked with the conception of professionalism and credibility, which professional status bestows. As a consequence, there are formidable reasons why theory is considered valuable with regard to respect and status. Nonetheless, if such reasons were the sole ones, the utilization of theory would be considered as shallow. This paper will examine the relationship between theory and practice, describing the manner in which theory can inform practice and issues involved in the translation of theory into practice. Evidently, theory is critical for the maximization of the potential efficacy of the practice of human services. According to Thompson (2000), theory is an integral constituent of informed practice. This is primarily because informed practice is vital to the achievement of justice to the intricacy of the conditions and environment in which human services workers work. Additionally, informed practice is critical to the avoidance of prejudices, stereotypes and assumptions, which can result in oppression and discrimination. Moreover, informed practice lays the groundwork for developmental technique, which enables continuous professional and personal development (Hirsch, 2000). This, in turn, speaks of the importance of informed practice in ensuring high levels of commitment and motivation in the conduct of one’s responsibilities. However, regardless of the essence of utilizing theory in practice, two categories of factors deter such achievement. On one hand, a vast majority of practitioners decline theory, choosing to adopt what they consider as a common sense approach or a pragmatic strategy. On the other hand, theoretical knowledge has conventionally been expressed through impenetrable and complex terms, making the content appear extremely inaccessible and elitist. This makes theoretical knowledge inconsequential to most practitioners (Thompson, 2000). In order to ascertain the relationship between theory and practice, there is a need to challenge the snubbing of theory by indicating the problems inherent in non-theoretical approaches. This relationship is also possible through the expulsion of elitism and mystique, which engulfs the world of theory. The link between theory and practice is considered a direct equivalent between thinking and doing. The relationship hinges on the question of how thought and knowledge inform and influence actions. Various theorists believe in the importance of learning from experience. For instance Kolb & Fry (1975) underscore the importance of educational processes on people’s understanding, as well as its importance for development. The concept of learning cycle is a recognized tool for appreciating adult learning as an active process through which practitioners acquire pertinent theory applicable to their practices. The cycle of learning typically involves four steps. The first step is concrete experience, which refers to experiences meant for learning, for instance, reading, participating in training courses and people’s life experiences as a whole. This essentially means that learning centers on life experiences instead of formal chances of learning. Additionally, concrete experience is an optimistic model of learning since learning opportunities abound. Notably, concrete experience is ineffective in promoting learning, hence the need for reflective observation, which encompasses reflections on experiences and ascertaining their importance (Edwards & Nicoll, 2006). In essence, people cannot learn from their experiences unless they consider these experiences and make sense of them. This necessitates the need for abstract conceptualization, which involves the consideration of the implications of concrete experiences and determining their validity and relevance. Conceptualization involves developing working models of hypotheses of the situations. The last step is active experimentation, which involves the application of new theory or learning into practice (Jos, Kessels & Korthagen, 1996). This involves the translation of learning at an abstract level into the reality of practice. While the fourth stage marks the culmination of the cycle, it does not mark the end of the relationship between theory and practice since the fourth stage ultimately becomes the initial stage (concrete experience) of a fresh cycle of learning. This means that the process is continuous. This view regarding the relationship between theory and practice poises that learning does not occur automatically as a consequence of experience. People’s experiences need to be processed to facilitate learning; therefore, this form of processing is an integral part of relating theory to practice (Parton, 2000). Additionally, in order for people to make sense of their experiences, they need to integrate them within the milieu of pre-existing conceptions, thereby making the experience part and parcel of their theoretical base. In doing so, people effectively apply practice to theory using their new experiences to test and extend their theoretical appreciation of the world. It is also evident that complete learning can only occur when the learning cycle is complete, when learning is integrated into practice. Going up to the third stage and failing to actively experiment can constitute acquiring knowledge, but not necessarily learning since knowledge acquisition is only a segment of the learning process. Moreover, each person is responsible for his or her own learning, which is a self-directed process. The use of theory in practice is indicative of the fact that there is an opportunity for learning in all situations. The day-to-day practices provide an environment in which thinking and doing interact quite constantly (Jos, Kessels & Korthagen, 1996). This elicits the chances for learning, which means doing enhances thinking, but simultaneously creates the opportunity of making use of theory and other forms of knowledge as a context for understanding and guiding action. This means that thinking enhances doing. However, it is pertinent to realize that the milieu offers opportunities, but such chances do not essentially produce learning. Moreover, opportunities available for putting theory into practice do not necessarily create theory-based practice. Therefore, practitioners are responsible for converting these opportunities into enhanced practice levels (Sheldon, 1978). In essence, this means that both the process of learning and relating theory with practice involve active participation and will not take place unless the person involved takes some form of initiative and exhibits commitment to take the entire process forward. In professionalism, one of the characteristics of a professional is the underlying knowledge base, which is a vast body of specialist knowledge that functions as the foundation of professional expertise (Edwards & Nicoll, 2006). The application of theory into practice is the epitome of professionalism. In an endeavor to attain professional status in the practice of human services, these practitioners demonstrate not only an underlying knowledge base, but specifically a unique knowledge base. Practitioners have a distinctive and hesitant relationship with theory. Such uncertainty centers primarily on the relevance of theoretical knowledge and the lack of adequate theoretical base in social practitioners. In some instances, theory provides the rationale for various actions such as collection of valid data thereby facilitating scientific practice (Kolb & Fry, 1975). Theory influences practice by setting standards for practice and defining the environment in which such practice takes place. Various factors interfere with the integration of theory in practice. For instance, inadequate exposure to theoretical principles deters effective practice while hidden curricula deters effective learning since learning is not planned formally. The lack of proper curriculum development makes theory incompatible with practice (Sheldon, 1978). In essence, the application of theory into practice essentially involves an in-depth understanding of concepts linked to the practice. Applying theory into practice typically involves the practitioners’ formulation of distinctive views and interpretation of the views. References Edwards, R., & Nicoll, K. (2006). Competence and reflection in the rhetoric of professional development. British Educational Research Journal, 32 (1), 115-131. Hirsch, D. (2000). Practitioners as researchers: Bridging theory and practice. New Directions for Higher Education, 110, 99-106. Jos, P. A., Kessels, M., & Korthagen, F. A. (1996). The relationship between theory and practice: Back to the classics. Educational Researcher, 25 (3), 17-22.  Kolb, D. A., & Fry, R. (1975). “Toward an applied theory of experiential learning.” In Cooper, C. (ed.) Theories of Group Process. London: John Wiley. Parton, N. (2000). Some thoughts on the relationship between theory and practice in and for social work. British Journal of Social Work, 30, 499-463. Sheldon, M. E. P. (1978). Theory and practice in social work: A re-examination of a tenuous relationship. British Journal of Social Work, 8 (1), 1-22. Thompson, N. (2000). Theory and practice in human services. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Read More