Incongruity between theory and practice will be covered in far more detail in the Chapter on Research and Evaluation. However the topic is also relevant to Training so that is why I include a short discussion here.
In formal education in general, and particularly on courses in third level Colleges, (regardless of the subject matter) a lot of theory is taught.
As part of most courses nowadays, some time is spent doing practical work where the student encounters the real world of their chosen area of study. These are usually called placements, or practicums.
The practice norms of the placement are then compared with the theories learned and a substantial part of the student’s learning is focused on how he translates theory into practice.
This is customary now in most courses – even in those courses that traditionally were academic only – as it is considered to be a very useful model for training competent practitioners.
Then, after he graduates and gets a job, he practices the theories on the ground (or in the field as is usually said) and sees how they work out. In other words, do the theories learned make sense in the world of real people and real things?
One of the aspects of supporting people in distress [1] is that the day to day practice – from I have often observed anyway – can be very different from the theory that is taught in colleges.
I noticed this very early on in my work as a street-worker.
In technology and engineering, the practice done daily, generally speaking, matches the theories taught. If it wasn’t, whatever was being done wouldn’t work. A bridge would collapse, an aeroplane wouldn’t take off, a (supposedly) heat-resistant plastic would melt, or food that we eat would poison us.
However, it seems to be very difficult to translate the theories of helping people in distress, (such as attachment, trauma, relationship, systems theory, dissociation and many others) into work on the ground – in particular the work that supports families in the Focus Group.
I’d better give a few examples to explain what I mean here.
The first example I’d like to give is the rolling out of a six-week or ten-week programme that is aimed to solve a particular presenting problem (for example, not-good-enough parenting) without addressing underlying causes of the parenting deficiencies, which could include depression, anxiety, anger or indeed the quality of the adult-adult relationships that the parent(s) have with each other, and relationships within the extended family in general.
I am not saying that such programmes are intrinsically bad – they are always based on very sound theories of human behaviour and development – it’s just that they don’t fit (or match) the presenting problem. If the planners thought systemically, (i.e. included systems theory) the totality of the problem would be considered very important.
In mainstream cognitive behavioural time-limited programmes, systems theory is largely ignored.
A second example is the turnover of staff in children’s care homes. This is partly because of late-night shift work which is hard to sustain over a long time. But many staff have reported to me that it is also because it is difficult to build long-term relationships with the young people in their care. This means, in turn, that it is very difficult to generate the sense of belonging so necessary for the secure base that is important if we are to support children who come from homes where they experienced disorganised attachment as children.
While the fundamentals of (highly regarded) attachment theory are known and (hopefully) practiced at an individual level as best practitioners can, they are ignored in the overall strategic planning. If the secure base was thought to be important, the entire structure of care homes would be different.
In care homes for children, attachment theory is largely ignored.
A third example might be the points system in mainstream education [2]. Once again, educational and child development theories are probably adhered to and practiced by teachers doing their best in individual schools and classes, but are undermined by the Pillars in their rush to fill up third level college places.
In mainstream education, a wide range of child development, educational and even modern neuroscience theories are ignored.
And (I’ll mention this because the website concerns imprisonment) despite the dedication of many individual prison officers and their commitment to growth and care of those in custody – which I will come back to later – imprisonment has shown over many decades if not centuries to have very little positive effect on the average human who goes there.
In mainstream imprisonment, almost all theories in respect of how humans grow, develop, nurture and improve their relationships are ignored.
The above examples would be like building a plane with engines, radio and radar, but ignoring basic principles of aerodynamics e.g. making the wings too short. It would never take off! Or building a bridge with no approach roads – it might be a fine example of civil engineering – but it could never be used.
The principal problem is that, generally, the ignoring of the fundamental theories runs like a thread through the Pillars, who are the principal influencers of which healing strategies are (or are not) going to be chosen in respect of helping the Focus Group.
[1]. Helping people in distress includes social work, social care, psychotherapy and counselling, teaching children at risk, community work, and all related fields.
[2]. From the points system comes the league table of secondary schools. This league table determines the top schools by comparing all the Leaving Certificate results from all the schools in the country and/or the number of College places secured by the school leavers. This introduces more harmful comparison and competition into education – the losers being the children (and teachers) who are struggling in schools that have catchment in poorer areas of the country. I really don’t believe that it improves the overall quality of education offered to children in Ireland – in fact, I believe that it is very harmful.