The Marriage between Theory and Practice

The idea of a dichotomy between theory and the professional practice of public administration is a confusing enigma to this well-seasoned social work management practitioner, currently administering a public human service agency. Over 20 years, my practice has been both as a social worker and as an administrator in public agencies. Both my education in the management of social work organizations and the actual practice of my profession have led me to the belief that theory and practice are two halves of a whole. The assumption that practice does not need theory is tantamount to setting sail in a ship without first possessing knowledge of navigation. How would one know that she or he had arrived when there is no course established? How would one know the pitfalls of the journey or even learn from others' journeys when little thought or consideration is given to what has gone before? Practitioners who assume public administration can be effective without parameters set by theory find themselves simply reacting to whatever the day brings. Whatever happens today often seems to have no correlation with similar occurrences nor connection to other parts of the field. The practitioner who does not recognize the impact of theory on finding meaning in situations is a technician--following procedures but failing to understand the deeper "whys," and lacking the ability to apply the "whys" in other situations. Without an understanding of theory, the public administration practitioner becomes merely the user of a "cookbook," a step-by-step guide any person of reason able intelligence could apply. Practice without theory is a hollow exercise and public management without theory is mere tinkering with systems (Timney 1999). The absence of theory within practice greatly diminishes the perception of public administration as a profession. In a similar way, assuming that theory does not need practice is comparable to setting a course without the ship, confident that the course is right for any ship regardless of its cargo, crew, or ownership. Without practice, where is the ability to field-test? What is there to examine or measure without practice? Do theorists see practice as a "lesser calling?" If there were no administrators, what would theory talk about? Because the brain thinks, is it a more important organ than the heart, which gives it life? The more practitioners recognize the need and role of theory in public administration, the more theorists need to "... devise a mode of theorizing that enhances, rather than destroys, meaning in practice" (Harding 2000, 5). Clearly, with the ever-increasing complexity of public administration practice and the desperate need to apply practice in a meaningful, innovative, progressive manner, it is time for theorists and practitioners to "kiss and make up." Practitioners and theorists must realize that they are married to each other and have been for quite some time. Even if this marriage is not comfortable for all involved, neither divorce nor separation is possible. Perhaps, while we in public administration are arguing over the virtues of theory versus practice, other professions are finding our domestic dispute rather amusing. The reconciliation between practice and theory for professions like social work and nursing came long ago. Until our reconciliation comes, our status as a profession will remain doubtful. If theory and practice are not a dichotomy, what is the problem of joining them? Could it be as simple as perception and/or a lack of communication? Do traditional practitioners of public administration believe theorists have nothing of value for those "in the trenches?" Do theorists fear sullying their work with the dirt of those trenches? Are theoretical pearls simply thrown before the swine of practice? Mary Timney states, "Theory gives practitioners that context and enables them to take a broader view of their functional work" (1999, 3). …