This Pass or Prepared? is based on Chapter 2 of Babbie and Halley and on class lectures.

1. Explain the relationship of theory to policy and to practice. Why do we insist that you consider the relationship also in the reverse direction: practice to policy to theory? Try to be concise.

   One Plausible Answer

Theory is the complex set of statements we have devised to explain and sometimes to predict the way things are. One example we used in class was the theory that our nation represents enlightenment, scientific knowledge, ability to harness and control scientific forces to provide a better life and environment for all. To the extent that we believe the theory on which we base our beliefs about our nation, we develop expectations for action and belief within the cultural context of our nation.

Thus, when we are told that the U.S. has actively supported the chemical poisoning of water in Iraq, which has resulted in and currently is continuing to result in the death of children and civiliams in Irag from diseases long conquered by Western health measures, we find it hard to believe. After all, our theory about our nation leads us to the policy belief that the U.S. helps the world, improves health and fights to protect children. We count that generally as the theory that we are a "good" nation and would not do "bad" things. So this report tells us that our theory about the "goodness" role of our nation may not always hold true.

How does this affect the policy with which we assess and evaluate news of our nation? We tend to dismiss information that contradicts the theories in which we believe, and we tend to emphasize information that confirms the theories in which we believe. This, in turn, affects the way we measure variables.

For example, we might measure the truth of this story on the Iraq water supply by asking our politicians if the story is true. This approach to measurement suggests that we believe that our politicians, as representatives of a "good" nation, are truthful and trustworthy. Our belief in the "goodness" of our nation colors the way we measure the validity of the story.

We are unlikely to measure the story's truth by seeking more information from Iraq. To do so would suggest that we were granting truthfulness and trustworthiness to Iraq, the enemy.

Thus, our theory that our nation is basically "good" and "scientific" colors our policy of believing that people from our nation are truthful and trustworthy and should be believed over the people of other nations, and that, in turn, colors the way we interpret (practice) the news of world events.

We insist that you consider the relationship in the reverse direction because the process is interdependent. That is, the way we interpret the news affects the strength of our belief in the "rightness" of our policy of trusting and believing the word of our own nation, and that affects the strength of our belief that our theory of "goodness" is right. This process does not operate in a vacuum. And the whole process is usually "out-of-awareness."

Want to explore further? What does moving a discussion from the practice level to a policy or theoretical level accomplish for discourse?

One Plausible Answer

Reference: Hall's Levels of Learning and Affect

We experience most affect at the informal or practice level. By moving to the policy level, as in asking to "speak to a supervisor," we move to the formal level and reduce the affect a little, but in order to produce a reasoned discussion of the issue, we move to the technical level, where the affect is least.

At which level do the numbers in the printouts by programs like SPSS and SDA fit?

One Plausible Answer

Numbers and quantitative analysis would be at the highest technical level, so that we would expect the least affect to be involved, and the most rational arguments to be possible. But, what if there is a very strong policy belief that the numbers have a more important knowledge than the narratives of the meaning of the numbers? Then we have moved back to a policy interpretation that quantitative, mathematical information is more important than qualitative, contextual information, which would call up more affect than one would expect on the technical level.

If one is convinced in an adversarial environment that quantitative is "better" then we might find that the discussion moves to an informal mode with extreme affect.