PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to contribute to the international debate over the university as the service provider for school administrator preparation programs from the United States perspective.Design/methodology/approachThe author's approach is that of using historical analysis in developing a conceptual position: the author argues that the university professoriate in the United States now has little choice but to heal the historic rift between theory and practice if it wants to survive this current ideological era characterized by accountability for public schools to improve student outcomes and by the competitive marketplace.FindingsThe author's analysis consists of four separate explications. He first explains the genesis of the schism between theory and practice endemic to all professional schools: 19th century Positivism and early 20th century Technical Rationality. Second, he points out that the university, which traditionally protected education administration programs from constituency attacks, can no longer do so in large part because the field's weak knowledge base is perceived by many reformers and practitioners alike as counter‐productive to improving schooling's core technology: teaching and learning. Third, based primarily upon the work of Culbertson, Willower, and Schon, the author draws on over a century's rich counter tradition to the forces of Positivism and Technical Rationality in advocating that practitioners should develop and test their own theories of practice.Practical implicationsThe last explication infers the practical value to this concept paper.Originality/valueThe author suggests how professors can exploit the university's institutional advantages in adopting practitioner‐developed theories in practice as a curricular centerpiece.

No abstract

How is learning (or inquiry) possible? For either we already know what we are after, and then we do not learn or inquire; or we do not know, and then we cannot inquire, for we do not know what to look for. The dilemma is at least suggestive, for it points to the true alternative: the use in inquiry of doubt, of tentative suggestion, of experimentation [1, p. 128].

No abstract

The purpose of this study was to discover factors influencing a person's decision to mentor students within campus recreation. The present study investigated four areas of inquiry within campus recreation: (a) What are the individual reasons for mentoring students? (b) What organizational factors inhibit or facilitate mentoring students? (c) What protégé characteristics attracted mentors?, and (d) What outcomes are associated with mentoring students? The phenomenological study relied on in-depth interviews of five campus recreation professionals. This research study utilized three in-depth phenomenological interviews with each participant as the primary means of collecting data. The researcher used the constant comparative method of analysis throughout the study. Analysis of the data produced personal life history portraits of each participant and provided themes and categories for each research question. Study findings provided valuable information for campus recreation directors wishing to successfully mentor students entering the campus recreation profession.