|
Size: 2424
Comment:
|
Size: 3241
Comment:
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 14: | Line 14: |
| Line 19: | Line 17: |
| Line 36: | Line 36: |
| The field of management has long been marked by a conflict between two competing views of professional knowledge. On the first view, the manager is a technician whose practice consists in applying to the everyday problems of his organization the principles and methods derived from management science. On the second, the manager is a craftsman, a practitioner of an art of managing that cannot be reduced to explicit rules and theories. The first view dates from the early decades of the twentieth century when the idea of professional management first came into good currency. The second has an even longer history, management having been understtod as an art, a matter of skill and wisdom, long before it began to be understood as a body of techniques. But the first view has gained steadily in power. |
DonaldSchön의 저작.
Preface
What is the kind of knowing in which competent practitioners engage? How is professional knowing like and unlike the kinds of knowledge presented in academic textbooks, scientific papers, and learned journals? In what sense, if any, is there intellectual rigor in professional practice?
In my analysis of these cases, I begin with the assumption that competent practitioners usually know more than they can say. They exhibit a kind of knowing-in-practice, most of which is tacit. Nevertheless, starting with protocols of actual performance, it is possible to construct and test models of knowing. Indeed, practitioners themselves often reveal a capacity for reflection on their intuitive knowing in the mist of actin and sometimes use this capacity to cope with the unique, uncertain, and conflicted situations of practice.
The heart of this study is an analysis of the distinctive structure of reflection-in-action. I shall argue that it is susceptible to a kind of rigor that is both like and unlike the rigor of scholarly research and controlled experiment. I shall also consider the question of its limits, some of which derive from myths about the relation of tought to action, while others are grounded in powerful features of the interpersonal and institutional contexts that we create for ourselves.
Finally, I shall suggest implications of the idea of reflective practice - implications for the professional's relation to his clients, for the organizational settings of practice, for the future interaction in the larger society.
Part 1. Professional Knowledge and Reflection-in-Action
1. The Crisis of Confidence in Professional Knowledge
2. From Technical Rationality to Reflection-in-Action
Part 2. Professional Context for Reflection-in-Action
3. Design as a Reflective Conversation with the Situation
4. Psychotherapy: The Patient as a Universe of One
5. The Structure of Reflection-in-Action
6. Reflective Practice in the Science-Based Professions
7. Town Planning: Limits to Reflection-in-Action
8. The Art of Managing: Reflection-in-Action Within an Organizational Learning System
The field of management has long been marked by a conflict between two competing views of professional knowledge.
On the first view, the manager is a technician whose practice consists in applying to the everyday problems of his organization the principles and methods derived from management science.
On the second, the manager is a craftsman, a practitioner of an art of managing that cannot be reduced to explicit rules and theories. The first view dates from the early decades of the twentieth century when the idea of professional management first came into good currency. The second has an even longer history, management having been understtod as an art, a matter of skill and wisdom, long before it began to be understood as a body of techniques. But the first view has gained steadily in power.
9. Patterns and Limits of Reflection-in-Action Across the Professions
Part 3. Conclusion