FRAMEWORKS & THEORIES

chi

We began this discuss and I was lost...theories and frameworks...what did I have to offer on this. I'd never considered terminology like this and didn't where I stood in being able to conceptualise or articulate what these words meant to me. However as the discussion evolved I began to understand not only the meaning behind these words but also my interpretation of them and how they are applicable to my practice. 

Framework: 'a basic structure underlying a system, concept, or text.' (as defined by Oxford Languages). For me the usage of the word basic in this definition is almost slanderous, having spent over an hour discussing the importance and variety of ways a framework can be categorised and drawn upon in multiple settings.The idea that a framework is instead a filtered, highly refined foundation for which a system, concept, text or practice is build feels more suitable. Upon research theoretical frameworks and the use of them within a wide range of industries it was often found that most were used with the term conceptual attached. Unpicking this a little - and with the awareness that was gained from this discussion - I've come to reason that this is because even though framework is integral to science, technology, business, construction, education, therapy, and all areas, a framework can truthful only be a concept. For can it be stated that it isn't until a framework it applied that faults and reasons for change are seen. Therefore does a framework needs to be an adaptable and evolving structure that provides a foundation for systems, concepts, texts or practice? Another idea that came up when talking about the notion of framework was the sense that a framework AS space. With this in mind can framework be considered a container and the space is the embodiment of the framework? A nice imagery for this framework/space idea is framework being like a plant pot and the space being soil for which the plants can grow (the seeds are then the theories and something I will discuss further a little later). In relation to this it would be considered highly important that the framework has the durability to hold whatever is placed into the space, highlighting the importance of being adaptable, flexible and adjustable. In a practical setting the utilisation of space, and thus the outcome for what can be created from it, has to do with the collaboration between practitioners/researchers/students/clients/artists. This means that the framework has to have the flexibility and the stability to unite different forms whilst having the strength to support, guide, lead and emphasis that which is necessary, provide emptiness and room for exploration and growth whilst being able to simply HOLD and HONOUR the process. Therefore creating a fertile ground for success. Reflecting these points back into my practice I've acknowledged that the for me my initial framework is my intention; for this interlinks the multitude of disciplines that I use. Its my intention that enables me to have flexibility within my practice, hold space with integrity and release the assumptions of an outcome. Therefore allowing me to always remaining in a state of almost conceptual ideology about how I believe a session will go. 

With regards to theories, I always believe this to term to be used in a scientific way. So initially it would the theories about the biomechanics of the body or surrounding psychology, adaptability, motivation and learnt behaviours etc. Researching this a little further and coming to see how a theory is considered a system of ideas intended to explain based on general principles independently of the thing to be explained. The concept therefore that a theory is a web of ideas that are brought together to bring sustenance and depth to a hypothesis I can see how I do in fact have my own theories which I can then apply to my sessions. These theories are based on both practical experiences as well as material I have ingested - podcasts, reading etc, It is though the use of these that I am then able to witness and established methodologies and patterns to help me and my practice. With this in mind I've come to examine the usefulness of the theories I hold in my work & the appropriate nature of them. For in regards to scientific literature a theory is then to be tested and assessed, this should then be the case for the theories which I hold in my practice. Firstly I must become awareness of theories that I hold - the way the body responds to stress, trauma or mental fluctuations, the timeline and changes in fluidity and adaptability of a client (and myself), the importance of being authentic and the alteration this can have in relationship dynamics, the accessibility my movement based practices and my ideologies around 1:1 and groups based practices. These are just some of the theories I've come to consider and ones which I've taken a hold of over time, but haven't every really acknowledged. Therefore, are they serving a purpose any more? Have they been thoroughly tested and reviewed as a theory should be? Are there any interlinking patterns which could correlate, clarify and condense some of my theories to create a smoother, more appropriate and overall better approach to my practice? 

After further deliberation I can see how the interconnectedness of frameworks and theories can create a methodology for a practice to evolve sufficiently and with positive effects. This is done through being evidence based, having the awareness to challenge principles that we've adopted, consciously or unconsciously. Whilst allowing for assumptions on the effectiveness of why or how we conduct our practice to be questioned. Acknowledging the power of vulnerability, realising that our previous methods, frameworks and theories may no longer hold scrutiny is crucial as well as recognising patterns, the functionality these patterns and granting power to the aspects of the practice which create a solid framework and theory it's evolution.