The Relationship Between Theory and Practice: Back to the Classics

During the 20th century, scholarly thinking has been dominated by a strong inequality between theory and practice. Abstract knowledge was considered to be of a higher standing and of more value than concrete skills or the tacit knowledge of good performance. Much of the educational research concentrated on theory formation, both descriptive, for explanation, and prescriptive, for behavioral instructions. Consequently, educationalists in different subjects and professions were confronted with the problem of bridging the gap between theory and practice, a task that never seemed to succeed. During the past few decades, this problem has been analyzed in such different fields as education (Schoen, Fenstermacher), anthropology (Geertz), epistemology (Rorty, Toulmin, Lyotard), and ethics (Nussbaum). In different ways, these scholars developed alternative models of knowledge. For the justification of such alternative models, several authors, especially in the philosophical domain, referred to the classical controversy between Plato's and Aristotle's conceptions of rationality (episteme versus phronesis). In this article, the characteristics of these different types of rationality are discussed, as are the consequences for teacher education of the shift from episteme to phronesis. A revaluation of practical knowledge will be proposed, as well as an alternative view of the relationship between theory and practice.