Print

---

Thanks Klaus for bringing this up again. perhaps we need to keep hammering the
fact that theorizing and practicing, as processes of inquiry, are different in
degree, not in kind. as how dewey would say.

perhaps the day when we can establish some formal guidelines/criteria for the
level of rigor in practice, that are on a par with those for  theory, then
those practices can be recognized as a form of  research.

 rosan

Klaus Krippendorff wrote:

> i don't have the time right now to get too lengthily involved in the theory
> and praxis distinction.  just enough to say that the crucial difference is
> the role of the theorist and the role of the practitioner.
>
> all definitions of theory that ken found completely ignore the role of the
> theorist who creates, invents, makes up theories to be tested.  being a
> theorist in my domain, i am always thinking of theorists as designers of
> theory.  it is the ideology of positivism that makes positivist theorists
> deny their creativity and describing their efforts as searchers for the
> truth, as of it could be found out there.  these theorists are supported in
> their beliefs by pointing out that that the theory once proven, reflect
> reality as it is, rendering the creative work of the theorist insignificant,
> running only after the facts.
>
> practitioners, on the other hand acknowledge their creativity, their body.
> there can be no practice without a practitioner doing something.  what they
> do is guided by something not so different from the hypothesis of
> scientists, except that for the practitioner the proof lies in the making of
> a reality, while for the theorist the proof lies in further observations
> (the prediction that the theory withstands the test of time)
>
> klaus
>
> --