Problem Formulation, Conceptualization, And Theory Development

Abstract

Abstract It is common to think of theory, applied research, and practice as separate, distinct entities. While these three entities seem logically dissimilar, in practice the distinctions between them make no difference. It is also common to think of theory as the province of esoteric researchers whose work has little relation to what happens in the “real world.” This too is the stuff of myths, but it is an idea with a long history. In 1803 Immanuel Kant railed against anyone denying that theory is related to practice as “exposing himself as an ignoramus in his field” (Kant, 1974, pp. 41-42). Those who deny the need for theory emphasize the role of ideology in practice. On one side Halmos saw theory and practice as being locked in a necessary and mutually destructive conflict: “While sociology weakens the inspirational elements of professional experience and interpretation, the professional ideology of personal service weakens the positivistic authority of social science” (Halmos, 1971, p. 593). On the other side the Schwendingers see practitioners as corporate liberals who use therapy as a form of social control. According to them, this transforms Freud into an instrument of the corporate state: “With these models, political issues and behavior are regarded as problems of individual adjustment” (Schwendinger, Schwendinger, 1974, p. 347).

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 2 citations exist upstream.