It seems to me that a lot of issues in Higher Education fester in the gap between theory and practice. Good research should amalgamate these dichotomies, fleshing out the problem space, creating bridges which often come in the form of models or frameworks. The scaffolding differs depending on the context. It's scaffolding none the less.
I am not convinced that theory and practice are mutually exclusive to begin with, I think there are more similarities than differences. We cannot talk about theory without practice and vice versa, yet setting them up as dichotomies forms a problem space to work in which is very convenient for us (if not self perpetuating)
Filtering happens all the time, the problem I feel lies here - in linguistics, semiotics, ontology, epistemology - in perception, sense making and communication. Often when I read academic lit. this is what sticks out to me like a sore thumb, it doesn't matter what the subject area. I hate that these things are skimmed over as a precursor to the argument - and not the argument itself.
Post modernism acknowledged the complexity associated with culture, truth making and judgement criteria. Modernism on the other hand offers a notion of truth that seems hard to resist, idealistically.
The invention of 'Zoom' allows us to explore both these frameworks, their relationship with a single lens simultaneously. We need to start conceptualising and communicating in layers, whilst keeping the complex clear by utilising the device of zoom. Zoom can be seen as a tool which can help us communicate micro, miso and macro levels of information with ease, because, really, everyone wants to see different pictures of the same bigger picture.
No comments:
Post a Comment