Correlating Academic theory with Management<\/p>\n
March 14, 15<\/p>\n
In Caroline Ramsey\u2019s two articles Provocative theory and a scholarship of practice <\/em>and Narrative: From Learning in Reflection to Learning in Performance, <\/em>I was able to learn that there are many things that go with learning. Some of the principles pointed out that were important to me were the correlation of context and interaction of academics and managers. \u201cConcrete experience requires (tacit text \u2013 context relation) that there is a world in which there are events that are distinct from people as participants, creators and observers.\u201d[1]<\/a> It is so easy to group participants and observers together. I am finding out more in organizations that some people are not really concerned about your experience as they are about what context you are in.<\/p>\n In my learning experience in different Universities primarily at Biola University, it was important for us to practice relational learning in our Organizational Leadership Class. How we interacted with other with our different learning styles was important to our learning experience. We also determined leaders in groups by who would emerge as the leader. This relational was a type of provocative theory. \u201cProvocative theory is a relational process rather than a type of academic thinking and is seen as a process whereby academic theory stimulates, incites and promotes changed practice as learning.\u201d[2]<\/a> I can fully understand this. I can see how academic theory stimulates in a group rather than the relational process. What we are learning I a group academically is the goal and the material presented to us is what promotes learning.<\/p>\n Although theory may be the job of academics, I have learned that it is important for those in management to understand the theory behind it. I don\u2019t see myself as analytical all the time but understanding what is going on theory wise is still a responsibility of those in management as well as those in academia. We are responsible for understanding the theory behind what\u2019s being taught as much as the performance of what is learned. I have seen myself more focused on the performance than the theoretical reflection. But as my one of my professor you to say, \u201cyour theory has to meet up with your practice and your practice has to meet up with your theory.\u201d That in and of itself is a challenge at times but without theory and understanding what that is, you will always find it hard to fulfill the performance of it.<\/p>\n What I was really surprised at was understanding the relational perspective. \u201cFor this reason a relational treatment of learning must attend to a socially mindful process that emphasize performance, rather than description of and adaption to an experience.\u201d[3]<\/a> It always seemed to me that the experience was important just as the relational part of learning. How do you be socially minded without the experience? I just kind of questioned this but I might not be understanding it well! Nevertheless, as was said early I believe that theory and practice has a lot to do with how we learn and interact within an organization.<\/p>\n [1]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Caroline Ramsey, \u201cNarrative: From Learning in Reflection to Learning in Performance,\u201d Sage [May 18, 2005] 221.<\/p>\n