Abstract This study examines the relationship between theory and practice in the science of education. In the first part of the study, theorists’ views about the relationship are examined in three continental orientations of pedagogy or science of education: hermeneutic-humanistic pedagogy (geisteswissenschaftliche Pädagogik), empirical-analytic science of education and critical pedagogy. In the context of empirical-analytic orientation, the science of education takes the shape of a technical discipline allowing practitioners of education to make diagnoses, prognoses, and technical prognoses. However, in reality the practical application of empirical-analytic knowledge about education is a highly complex and demanding enterprise. In hermeneutic-humanistic pedagogy and critical pedagogy, the relationship between theory and practice is more clearly structured according to the notion of practical or moral science. For pedagogy or science of education, it is not sufficient to merely describe or interpret phenomena of education and their socio-historical context. Education must also have orientation, and educational theories are to serve possible or future practice. In the second part of the study, drawing from the interviews of practitioners from various fields of education, five practitioner’s views about the relationship between theory and practice in education are reconstructed. According to the first view, the source of the problems concerning the relationship between theory and practice in education lies in the questionable scientific status of the science of education and educational theories. The core of the second practitioner’s view is that the problems encountered when applying educational theories to practice stem from the failure of the science of education to acknowledge the pedagogical difference between educational theory and practice. The third practitioner’s view holds that in order to act in the practice of education, the practitioner must focus reflection on the task at hand. The fourth practitioner’s view reconstructed in this study is a notion about the unrealistic and unempirical character of educational theories: instead of describing what really happens in the practice of education, educational theories often outline the actions of ideal educators and subjects of education. According to the fifth practitioner’s view, the practitioner must function as the personal and individual element bridging the gap between theory and practice. / Tiivistelmä Tutkimuksessa tarkastellaan kasvatustieteen teoria–käytäntö-suhdetta. Työn alkuosassa eritellään teoria–käytäntö-suhdetta koskevia teoreetikkojen näkemyksiä henkitieteellisessä pedagogiikassa, empiiris-analyyttisessa kasvatustieteessä ja kriittisessä kasvatustieteessä. Empiiris-analyyttisesta kasvatustieteestä on muodostunut teknologinen tiede, jonka avulla käytännön kasvattajien on periaatteessa mahdollista diagnosoida, prognosoida ja teknisesti prognosoida. Empiiris-analyyttisen kasvatusta koskevan tiedon soveltaminen käytäntöön on kuitenkin todellisuudessa huomattavan monimutkaista. Henkitieteellisessä pedagogiikassa ja kriittisessä kasvatustieteessä teoria–käytäntö-suhde on rakentunut edellistä selvemmin praktisen tieteen mallin mukaiseksi. Kasvatustieteen tai tieteellisen pedagogiikan osalta ei tällöin riitä, että tutkimuskohteena olevaa toimintaa ja sen yhteiskunnallis-historiallista kontekstia vain kuvataan tai tulkitaan. Pedagogista toimintaa on myös orientoitava, ja teorioiden on palveltava mahdollista tai tulevaa inhimillistä käytäntöä. Tutkimuksen loppuosassa rekonstruoidaan kasvatuksen eri alueilla toimivilta kerätyn empiirisen haastatteluaineiston perusteella viisi praktikon näkemystä kasvatustieteen teoria–käytäntö-suhteesta. Ensimmäisen näkemyksen mukaan kasvatustieteen teoria–käytäntö-suhteen ongelmien alkulähteenä on kyseenalainen tieteellinen status. Toisessa näkemyksessä teoria–käytäntö-suhteen ongelmat seuraavat kasvatustieteen epäonnistumisesta paikanmäärityksessään pedagogisen differenssin suhteen. Kolmannen näkemyksen yhteydessä esitetään ajatus siitä, että jotta pedagoginen toiminta käytännössä olisi mahdollista, on reflektio välttämättä tarkennettava käytännön toiminnassa käsillä olevaan kohteeseen. Neljäs praktikon näkemys on ajattelutapa, jonka mukaan kasvatustieteelliset teoriat ovat epärealistisia ja epäempiirisiä: ne kuvaavat reaalisen sijaan idealisoidun kasvattajan ja idealisoitujen kasvatettavien toimintaa. Viides praktikon näkemys kiteytyy ajatukseen siitä, että praktikko itse on teoriaa ja käytäntöä välittävä persoonallinen ja yksilöllinen silta.

In this work I deal with the question of whether the use of the concept of overdetermination is coherent across 1) psychoanalytic theoretical and case studies and 2) different psychoanalytic directions. Based on the analysis of the most cited case studies dealing with the topic of narcissism in the field of Kleinian and Relational psychoanalysis, I come to the conclusion that the use of the concept of overdetermination is not completely coherent in psychoanalysis. This incoherence may be due to the different attitudes of different authors to abstract metapsychological assumptions. Narcissism of small differences, which in my opinion is evident between representatives of different psychoanalytic directions, can also play a role. And last but not least, it is possible to look at this incoherence as the result of so-called implicit theories, i.e. not entirely official and conscious theories that psychoanalysts follow in the course of their practical clinical work. Keywords Psychoanalytic discourse, overdetermination, analysis of psychotherapeutic case reports, the relationship between theory and practice ;

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-27T16:33:44Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Tamara Fresia Mantovani de Oliveira.pdf: 677739 bytes, checksum: 528fe98764392a6045a7c898ca970fb0 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008-09-22 / Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico / The current work proposes an analysis of the knowledge expressed by the teachers towards alphabetizing, which would allow understanding them in the context in which school alphabetization is situated, considering the position occupied by the alphabetizing teacher on the division of work in education. The hypothesis was established on the assertive that the observed problems in school alphabetization are related to its transitional character and instrumental in the educational system and to the role kept for the alphabetizing teacher of executioner of the external knowledge produced of his practice. Based on the gathering of information, it was elaborated a questioner that allowed an approach about the knowledge manifested by these teachers taking a three dimension analysis: Of belonging to social groups; of the conceptions and personal values and of the condition of work and professional training. The questioner was answered by eleven teachers of the first year of fundamental education of the public schools at the city of São Paulo. On the analysis, it was related the manifestations of the consulted teachers with the information present at official documents that were selected for this discussion. On the results of the research it was observed that the context in which happens the construction of hegemony of constructivism by the educational policies contributes to reproduce the logic that rules the organization of work in education, separating theoretical and practical. It was also observed that, based on the data obtained, evidences of the coexistence of various actions and practices on the educational characteristics of these teachers, as the teachers that identified with the constructivist proposal as those that identified with the traditional proposal / O presente trabalho propôs uma análise dos conhecimentos manifestos pelos professores para o ensino em alfabetização, que possibilitasse compreendê-los no contexto em que a alfabetização escolar está situada, considerando o lugar ocupado pelo professor alfabetizador na divisão do trabalho em educação. A hipótese ficou definida na assertiva de que os problemas observados na alfabetização escolar estão relacionados ao seu caráter transitório e instrumental no sistema educacional e ao papel reservado ao professor alfabetizador de executor de conhecimentos produzidos externamente a sua prática. Tendo em vista a coleta das informações, elaborou-se um questionário que permitisse uma abordagem sobre conhecimentos manifestos por essas professoras tomando três dimensões de análise: a do pertencimento a grupos sociais; a das concepções e valores pessoais e a das condições de trabalho e da formação profissional. O questionário foi respondido por 11 professoras de 1.º ano do Ensino Fundamental da rede municipal da cidade de São Paulo. Na análise, as manifestações das professoras consultadas foram relacionadas a informações presentes em documentos oficiais selecionados para essa discussão. Nos resultados da pesquisa, observaram-se indícios de que o contexto em que se dá a construção da hegemonia do construtivismo pelas políticas educacionais contribui para reproduzir a lógica que rege a organização do trabalho em educação, separando teóricos e práticos. Também, os dados obtidos revelaram indícios da convivência de ações e práticas diversas no ensino dessas professoras, tanto as identificadas com a proposta construtivista como as identificadas com propostas tradicionais