Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Application-to put a thing into practical contact with another-is treated variously in adult education as a central concept, vague understanding, or anathema. These mixed responses are tied to the practical roots of application and its tension with science and theory. Technical rationality coopted application to reduce this tension by putting value on outcomes and technology, not on the processes that surround them. By reclaiming application from positivism, new opportunity arises for adult educators to contribute to the applied turn in contemporary theory and practice. In this reconstruction, means connect not only to ends, but to intent; knowledge creation occurs throughout process, not just before it; control surrenders to feasibility and negotiation; individual action interacts with context; and disciplines release control of application to all learners. The complex, multi-dimensional process of application takes more than a good idea. It takes knowledge, skill, endurance, and artistry. To reclaim application is to reclaim the value of process.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bloom, B.S. (1954). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Book 1 cognitive domain. New York: Longman.

Brookfield, S.D. (1990). Understanding and facilitating adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Caffarella, R.S. (1994). Planning programs for adult learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Campbell, D.T. (1988). The experimenting society. In S. Overman (Ed.), Methodology and epistemology for social science: Selected papers of Donald T. Campbell (pp. 290-314). Chicago: University of Chicago.

Cervero, R.M. , & Wilson, A.L. (1994). Planning responsibly for adult education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cervero, R. M. & Rottet, S. (1984). Analyzing the effectiveness of continuing professional education: An exploratory study. Adult Education Quarterly, 34(3), 135-146.

Dunne, J. (1993). Back to the rough ground: "Phronesis" and "techne" in modern philosophy and in Aristotle. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame.

Forester, J. (Ed.). (1985). Critical theory and public life. Cambridge: MIT.

Guba, E. G. (Ed.). (1990). The paradigm dialog. Newbury Park: Sage.

10.

Herron, N.L. (Ed.). (1989). The social sciences: A cross-disciplinary guide to selected sources. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

11.

Hoffman, F.O. (1981). Getting line managers into the act. Training and Development Journal, 35(3), 68-73.

12.

Kemerer, R.W. (1991). Understanding the application of learning. In T. J. Sork (Ed.), Mistakes made and lessons learned: Overcoming obstacles to successful program planning, 49, (Spring, pp. 67-80). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

13.

Library of Congress. (1994). Subject headings (17th ed., Vol. 1). Washington, D.C: Author.

14.

Mager, R.F. (1975). Preparing instructional objectives. (2nd ed). Belmont, CA: Fearon.

15.

Mc Donald, R.M. (1991). Assessment of organizational context: A missing component in evaluations of training programs. Evaluation and Program planning, 14, 273-279.

16.

Merriam, S.B. (1986). The research-to-practice dilemma. Lifelong Learning: An Omnibus of Practice and Research, 10(1), 4-6.

17.

Mishler, E.R. (1979). Meaning in context: Is there any other kind? Harvard Educational Review, 49(1), 1-19.

18.

Ottoson, J.M. (1984). Reconciling concept and context: The practitioner's dilemma in implementing policy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

19.

Ottoson, J.M. (in press). Use of a conceptual framework to explore multiple influences on the application of learning following a continuing education program. The Canadian Journal for the Study of Education.

20.

Ottoson, J.M. , & Green, L.W. (1987). Reconciling concept and context: Theory of implementation. Advances in Health Education & Promotion, 2, 353-382.

21.

Pressman, J.L. & Wildavsky, A. (1979). Implementation (2nd ed.). Berkeley: University of California.

22.

Rothman, J. (1980). Using research in organizations: A guide to successful application. Beverly Hills: Sage.

23.

Schon, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. United States: Basic Books.

24.

Sharp, D. (Ed.). (1991). About translation. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.

25.

Simpson, J.A. , & Weiner, E.S.C. (Eds.). (1989). The Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed., vol. 1). Oxford: Clarendon.

26.

Smith, N.L. , & Chircop, S. (1989). The Weiss-Patton debate: Illumination of the fundamental concerns. Evaluation Practice, 10(1), 5-13.

27.

Sork, T.J. (1990). Theoretical foundations of educational program planning. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 10, 73-83.

28.

Weiss, C.H. (1972). Evaluation research. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

29.

Weiss, C.H. & Boucouvalas, M.J. (1977). The challenge of social research to decision making. In C.H. Weiss (Ed.), Using social research in public policy making (pp. 213-230). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

30.

Weiss, C.H. & Boucouvalas, M.J. (1980). Social science research and decision-making. New York: Columbia University.

31.

van Fraassen, B. (1991). The pragmatics of explanation. In R. Boyd , P. Gasper , & J.D.Trout (Eds.), The philosophy of science (pp. 317-327). Cambridge: MIT.

32.

Vazquez, A.S. (1977). The philosophy of praxis. London: Merlin.

Reclaiiming the Concept of Application: From Social to Technological Process and Back Again

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References