In contemporary times, we find a similar borrowing of models and technical terms from computer technologies. We use terms and models such as “interface” and “processing.” The other very special technology of our era is space travel. From this domain we have borrowed such words and related models as “module” and “launch”. The “ghosts” (assumptions, values, fears, hopes, conflicts—even paradigms) that emanate from these technologies are brought along (unconsciously) with acquisition of the new technology. The haunting of these ghosts shows up in the inappropriate assumptive worlds associated with specific models (and practices).
A model such as “launch” or “processing” is clearly visible and is vulnerable, therefore, to inspection and even criticism. For instance, we find that a model such as “teamwork” (borrowed by business from the domain of sports) is sometimes subject to critical review: “a group of people working on an important project are doing something much more important than scoring a touchdown.” “There are no quarterbacks on this team, only co-workers and co-learners.” While this kind of pushback is rare, it is done and is viewed as legitimate. Socially constructed models, in other words, are not “God-given.” (as are paradigmatic constructions). They are made by humankind and are contained in our everyday language. Using a term introduced by Argyris and Schön (1974), models are discussable (rather than being “self-sealing”).
Practices: David Halliburton and I have proposed that Practices are:
- Based on models that are usually conscious (explicit knowledge): though the espoused practices (articulation of the model) might not align with the enacted practices
- Many in number, and
- Much less powerful or influential than models or paradigms
As the third element in our tri-partite categorization, Practices are explicit and readily discussed. They occupy our attention every day and often are taken for granted or serve, as Michael Polanyi (2009) suggests as tacitly held ways of operating in our world. For professionals, the practices are what Thomas Kuhn might label as “normal.” We rarely reflect on the practices we regularly engage, even though Donald Schön (1983) would suggest that this reflection is critical to effective practice. In many instances, this reflection takes us back to the models that support the practices and even to the paradigms that provide a foundation for the models.
This “deeper” level of reflection often only occurs when we have bumped up against an “anomaly” in our professional practices. An “anomaly” might be the resistant client/patient that we are unable to serve, or the intervention we have made that did not go as planned. We are “bit by our surprising failure and need to slow down our thinking (Kahneman, 2011), while also moving to a higher level of cognition (Kegan, 1982; Kegan, 1994). Ken and Mary Gergen (2004) would even suggest that we reason thought our anomaly with other people—suggesting that so level of supervision is of value for all professionals, regardless of serving for many years withing their field.
