A Conceptual Framework for Thinking about Conceptual Frameworks: Bridging the Theory‐Practice Gap
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/09578239210020453 |
| Published date | 01 April 1992 |
| Date | 01 April 1992 |
| Author | Jean Hills,C. Gibson |
| Subject Matter | Education |
Journal of
Educational
Administration
30,4
4
A Conceptual Framework for
Thinking about Conceptual
Frameworks: Bridging the
Theory-Practice Gap
Jean Hills and C. Gibson
University of British Columbia,
Vancouver,
Canada
Ask
a
professor, a student or
a
practitioner of educational administration whether
or not conceptual frameworks and competence
in
their application are important
in the study and practice of administration, and the chances are that you will
receive an affirmative
answer.
Ask the same person what conceptual frameworks
"are",
what one does when one applies them, and why they are important,
and the chances are that you
will
receive
an
imprecise,
non-informative answer.
It has been commonplace since Allison's analysis[1] of
the
Cuban missile crisis
to extol the benefits of applying multiple frameworks to
empirical,
and especially
problematic, situations, and it
is
commonplace to regard conceptual frameworks
as one of the central and potentially most useful components of administrator
preparation curricula. Yet there has been developed no conceptual framework
within which to understand what it is that one does when one applies them.
Moreover, the benefits of applying them, if any, have yet to be discussed in
any terms more precise than vague metaphors of everyday language. We are
still talking and thinking of providing students with "aids to insight and
understanding"
[2],
"sensitizing ideas and concepts"[3], "general conceptions
and
paradigms"[4],
"repertoires of
examples,
images and understandings"[5],
and "metaphors which lead us to see and understand ... in distinctive and
partial
ways"
[6].
The lack of a "framework" within which to give consideration
to such questions is the problem for which the content of this article is an
intended solution.
Why is the lack of conceptual framework within which to give consideration
to such questions a problem? Several reasons come to mind. First, lacking
answers to the questions regarding what it is that we do when we apply
conceptual frameworks, and what benefits accrue therefrom, we cannot answer
further questions regarding more or less effective ways to present much of the
content of preparation curricula, and more or less effective ways to develop
competence in its utilization. We can only teach the content
itself,
saying, for
example, "Here is how Geertz[7] conceived culture. Learn it: it will provide
you
with 'sensitizing concepts' and serve as an 'aid
to
insight
and
understanding.'
Second, lacking the means to identify and develop skills in the effective
The framework explicated in this article is the product of the authors' collaborative teaching and
study extending over a period of eight
years.
It was first presented, in a somewhat less well developed
form, and with a somewhat different focus, in an extended critique of Donald Schon's The
Reflective
Practitioner[5]
in Grimmett and Erickson (Eds), Reflections in
Teacher
Education[8].
Journal of Educational
Administration, Vol. 30 No. 4.
1992.
pp. 4-24. © MCB University
Press, 0957-8234
Conceptual
Frameworks
5
use of conceptual frameworks, we leave unaddressed the chronic (and perhaps
justified) complaint regarding the gap between "theory", as dispensed by
university preparation programmes and the problems of practice encountered
in the field. Third, the development of
high
levels of mastery (which includes
both appropriation and application) of
a
variety of conceptual frameworks appears
to be difficult, if not impossible, in the absence of
a
more general conceptual
framework within which particular conceptual frameworks
can
be seen as specific
instances. (We use the term "appropriate" here in preference to the term
"acquire". For us, the former implies the active re-creation, or reinvention,
of
the
framework with the associated capacity to adapt it to new circumstances.
The latter, again for
us,
tends to emphasize memorizing,
recall and
the application
of skill without the command of underlying principles.)
To borrow from Vygotsky[9], just as one's ability to make flexible and
purposeful use of numerical systems with different bases[1,3,10] is contingent
on possession of the concept of notational system, so one's ability to make
flexible, purposeful use of a variety of conceptual frameworks seems to be
contingent
on
possession of
a
conceptual framework for
thinking
about conceptual
frameworks; one that is, in a sense, to be explained below, more than a mere
label.
We
hold that there are sound theoretical reasons for believing that, other
things being equal, practitioners and researchers who can make flexible,
self-
conscious, purposeful selections
from
among a
variety of conceptual frameworks
are more effective solvers of unstructured problems than are those who cannot.
Procedure
In what follows, we shall:
(1)
draw on
the works of
a
number of authors[10-19] to synthesize a conceptual
framework (or, as we prefer,
a
linguistic-conceptual system) within which
to think about conceptual frameworks;
(2) indicate within that system what conceptual frameworks "are";
(3) describe within that system what it "is" which we do when we
appropriate them;
(4) specify within that system what it
"is''
which we do
when
we apply
them;
(5) suggest ways in which thinking about conceptual frameworks in the
manner indicated may contribute to the development of competence in
their appropriation and skilful application;
(6) point out the ways in which that competence might be expected to
contribute to increased problem-solving effectiveness; and
(7) identify several implications for instruction.
The relevance of our discussion to the bridging of the "theory-practice gap"
will be sufficiently apparent to require no special elaboration.
A Linguistic-conceptual System
Internal Representation
Theories which postulate internal representations
by
means of which organisms
calculate courses of action has come under sharp attack
by
biological theorists
[20,21].
To continue reading
Request your trial