I was entertained today by the interaction between "academic" and "operational" professionals in an emerging profession. There were two discourses going on:

The first discourse was of (high) theory.

The second was of related to the (low) application of theory in complex contexts.

It brought back memories of Donald Schon/Schön:

In the varied topography of professional practice, there is a high, hard ground overlooking a swamp.  On the high ground, manageable problems lend themselves to solution through the use of research-based theory and technique.  In the swampy lowlands, problems are messy and confusing and incapable of technical solution.  The irony of this situation is that the problems of the high ground tend to be relatively unimportant to individuals or society at large, however great their technical interest may be, while in the swamp lie the problems of greatest human concern.  The practitioner is confronted with a choice.  Shall he remain on the high ground where he can solve relatively unimportant problems according to his standards of rigor, or shall he descend to the swamp of important problems where he cannot be rigorous in any way he knows how to describe.  source (an excerpt)

The workshop process then ended up with the cliff dwellers throwing stones (models, taxonomies etc) down on the swamp dwellers who couldn't argue their point because the stones didn't really have any impact in their realities. They were, however, intimidated by the big plops that the stones made in the swamp,

The "operational" viewed these inputs as a threat to their practice.

But if the stones had been characterised as findings from research or as possible approaches, methods, tools or techniques a totally different dialogue/discussion would have emerged.