What Brain Sciences Reveal About Integrating Theory and Practice

Abstract

Theory and practice are integrated in the human brain. Situation recognition and response are key to this integration. Scholars of decision making and expertise have found that people with great expertise are more adept at situational recognition and intentional about their decision-making processes. Several interdisciplinary fields of inquiry provide insights into how we manage situation recognition in the face of complexity. Classic works on bounded rationality and satisficing, contingency theory, cognitive science, and decision sciences have been identifying how the brain processes information through conceptual screens to facilitate cutting through the messy, confusing, overwhelming chaos of the real world so that we can avoid analysis paralysis. This article presents six conceptual screens that, in combination, constitute a theory to practice situation recognition framework: (1) intended users’ contingencies; (2) nature of the evaluand; (3) evaluation purpose: findings use options; (4) process options; (5) context & situational contingencies; and (6) evaluator characteristics.

Keywords

theory practice situation recognition utilization

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alkin

M.C.

(1985). A guide for evaluation decision makers. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Chelimsky

(1983). Improving the cost effectiveness of evaluation. In Alkin

M. C.

Solomon

L. C.

(Eds.), The costs of evaluation (pp. 149–170). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Chelimsky

(1995). The political environment of evaluation and what it means for the development of the field. American Evaluation Association Presidential Address, November, Vancouver. Evaluation Practice, 16, 215–225.

Chelimsky

. (1997). The coming transformations in evaluation. In Chelimsky

Shadish

(Eds.), Evaluation for the 21st century (pp. 1–26). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Chelimsky

(2007). Factors influencing the choice of methods in federal evaluation practice. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 113, 13–33.

Chelimsky

(2013). Balancing evaluation theory and practice in the real world. American Journal of Evaluation, 34, 91–98.

Fun Facts. (2012). Fun facts about the brain. Retrieved from http://www.brainhealthandpuzzles.com/fun_facts_about_the_brain.html

Kahneman

Tversky

. (Eds.). (2000). Choices, values, and frames. Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Klein

(1999). Sources of power: How people make decisions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

10.

Morgan

(2006). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

11.

Patrizi

Patton

M. Q.

(Eds.). (2005). Teaching Evaluation Using the Case Method: New Directions for Evaluation, Number 105. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

12.

Patton

M. Q.

(2008). Utilization-focused evaluation (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

13.

Patton

M. Q.

(2011). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York, NY: Guilford.

14.

Patton

M. Q.

(2012). Essentials of utilization-focused evaluation (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

15.

Patton

M. Q

. (2013). Metaevaluation: Evaluating the evaluation of the Paris declaration. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 27, 147–171.

16.

Rog

. (2009). Context and evaluation. Presidential explanation of the American Evaluation Association annual meeting theme. Retrieved from: http://archive.eval.org/search09/search.asp

17.

Schön

Donald A.

(1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.

18.

Schön

Donald A.

(1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

19.

Schwandt

(2007). The Sage dictionary of qualitative inquiry (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

20.

Simon

(1957). Administrative behavior. New York, NY: Macmillan.

21.

Simon

(1978). On how we decide what to do. Bell Journal of Economics, 9, 494–507.

22.

Sweeney

Gosfield

(2013). The art of doing: How superachievers do what they do and how they do it so well. New York, NY: Penguin.

23.

Tversky

Kahneman

(1974). Judgments under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science. 185, 1124–1125.