The Marriage between Theory and Practice

• Author: Judith K. Englehart
• Published date: 01 May 2001
• Date: 01 May 2001
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00037

The Reflective Practitioner 371

In this issue, Judith K. Englehart, a practicing administrator, argues that theory and practice are two halves of a whole. She

rejects the idea that theory need be considered irrelevant to day-to-day practice. Englehart suggests that in fact administrators do

theorize, whether they are aware of doing so or not; often “hidden theories” in policies “shape practitioner actions without their

conscious awareness.” It may be the scientific model of theory that is putting administrators off, because this type of theory seems

to hold itself above the field of practice. But, by broadening our definitions of theory, the field may be able to rejoin theory with

practice, and by doing so contribute both to advancing knowledge and to producing knowledgeable public sector leaders.

The editors welcome submissions for possible publication in “The Reflective Practitioner.” We are particularly interested in

articles that explore ways in which theory and/or research did or did not inform practical situations in public agencies. Please send

articles for consideration to Camilla Stivers, associate editor (camilla@wolf.csuohio.edu).

Judith K. Englehart

Erie County (OH) Department of Job and Family Services

The Marriage between Theory and Practice

The Reflective Practitioner

Judith K. Englehart, director of the Erie County (Ohio) Department of Job

and Family Services for 12 years, has a master’s degree in social work from

The Ohio State University and is pursuing her doctorate in public administra-

tion at the Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs, Cleveland State

University. She is a licensed independent social worker (LISW) in the State of

Ohio, Academy of Certified Social Workers (ACSW) of the National Asso-

ciation of Social Workers, and a certified social work manager (CSWM) of

the National Network of Social Work Managers, from whom she recently

received the national “Exemplar 2000” award.

The idea of a dichotomy between theory and the pro-

fessional practice of public administration is a confusing

enigma to this well-seasoned social work management

practitioner, currently administering a public human ser-

vice 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 or-

ganizations 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 hap-

pens 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—follow-

ing procedures but failing to understand the deeper “whys,”

and lacking the ability to apply the “whys” in other situa-

tions. Without an understanding of theory, the public ad-

ministration 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 percep-

tion 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 mea-

sure 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