5.4.8 Theory Into Practice

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.

The previous post gave examples of incongruity between theory and practice in helping people in deep distress.

Following some consideration here are a few ideas that I have as to why this incongruity exists – i.e. why theory is not translated into practice in the area of helping families in the Focus Group. As you are reading you might think of more:

1. There is not enough money available to pay the number of practitioners who would be needed if we were to commit to supporting the people who most need support using the theories that would really make a difference. This is undoubtedly true.

2. In respect of the theories concerned with the primacy of building long-term relationships, the real world of promotions, transfers, job security/insecurity, changes, house moves etc. gets in the way. There is little that can be done about this but we need to be aware of it!

3. Mostly, people of influence within the Pillars do not have the knowledge that is necessary to plan and implement a strategy that will work.  But unlike science and engineering, lack of knowledge will not stop them doing it. There is little that we community workers can do about the power structures of society.

4. Many people in senior positions within the Pillars have a power base which might be threatened by a person of lesser rank pointing out that a particular practice contradicts some theory that they have learned.  I promise you – this happens! See 3 above.

5. There is prejudice as to what should be resourced and what should not.  This prejudice could arise from previous negative experiences, fear, pressure to save time, bias towards a particular modality (e.g. the medical model), and many other factors. We’re really up against it here.

6. We (community workers and leaders) come under influence from the Pillars (in particular Public Service and Academia) to roll out a programme which has been bought at some expense even though we know in our heart of hearts that it goes against theories that we have learned and experience we have. This is something that we can do a lot about with a bit of confidence and assertiveness – and really knowing what is needed by families.

7. People in power wish to make a name for themselves and they pin their colours to a particular modality because they are identified with it – even if it isn’t working that well.  Or, perhaps, they have some monetary gain from it. See 6 above.

8. The culture of the middle-class formally educated and trained practitioner can be very removed from that of the Focus Group and application of the theories (e.g. unconditional positive regard) in the real world can cause so much discomfort that they are ignored, or substantially diluted. As in 6 above, again.

I deliberately put the first four at the top of the list because there is little that we can do about them.

But I believe that good training that is matched to the needs of the families and children will go a long way in ameliorating the negative effects of many of the others.

This is because good training will give us both the confidence to argue for implementation of the theories in a respectful and well-thought-out manner, and the clarity to discriminate between what will work and what won’t.