Theory and Practice-Dichotomy & Resolution. And the Validation of Multi-Paradigmatic Organization Studies

1. This is a paper where what is unsaid is as much important to me as what is said. Ultimately, I would say it made me think with a hammer, but still left me frustrated. The theory-practice debate has always engaged me as a practicing administrator, but I could hold on fondly to my prejudices until I began to write this.2. I have tried to answer two questions: 1. Are multiple paradigms good for organizational theory? 2. Is theory valid for its own sake or for its relevance and usefulness to the practitioner? I have begun by trying to see the reasons for the theory-practice divide: Theory does not capture complexity, the heterogeneous nature of the practitioner audience, theory’s emphasis on what ‘ought to be’ than process and politics, distance from local reality, and theory creating theoreticians, not actors.3. In Part II, I have tried to see if a bridge can be built. History, Globalization and the emergence of Professional disciplines (management, public policy) seem to be closing the gap. Part III is a discussion of Professional/Practitioner Rationality vis-a-vis Technical Rationality and the nature of Professional theory. In Part IV I have concluded that given the complex nature of reality, and given that theory and practice validate each other; a multi-paradigmatic discipline like organizational studies is more equipped to provide answers than other mono-paradigmatic sciences.4. Early on, I began to have doubts (a) Is it not better to leave theory free to find validation in itself than in practice? (b) Is it the practitioner’s responsibility to sift and find answers or the theorist’s to cater to practicality? (c) Is it good for a discipline to be self engaged or engage with the world outside itself? As I read more and more to find clarity, what I found were heartening echoes in literature rather than answers. My questions remain, but I hope I am a bit wiser now in not having all the answers.