Use your second paragraph as your first paragraph in your assignment. Expand it. See if you can link it to your third paragraph (different language used by policy-makers and practitioners). In which case, expand your third paragraph. Otherwise expand paragraph two further.

Sorry, I must now get out of here, because I do not want to be marked! Cheers!

Hello Josmar,

The notion of tension in philosophical contemplation begins with Ancient political philosophy. Namely the tension between the rules and the ruled. This is  played out in the Trial of Socrates. This push pull of tension is also contemplated in mind-body duelism, rationism, pragmatism, continental philosophy and in most philosophy. In-fact for me any relations between objects in either the physical or the social worlds differing tensions are to be found. Tension beween gravity and a clestial body, between a man and a women, ect.

In your case I would stay focused on one or two differing philosophical theories at most. Political philosophy would be a great choice because policy makers are political and we poor practioners are the governed.  One other great choice wouldbe the philosophy of dialectic.  This in large measure is the tension between, or the dialectical relationship between in your case policy makers and practioners. Dialectics allows an avenue into relations between objects.

If you do chose perception look into thephilosophical history of hermeneutics, this will be of great help to you and would tie in quite nicely with critical linguestics.  One major piece of this type of approach however is a deep examining of the differing ideas of ideologies, consciousness, and existience itself.  From Descartes cogito ergo sum, to epistomology, to meta theory.  From Hume's arguements of experiencee as knowledge to Descartes metaphysics to Kant's rationality.

In the end however I would suggest a framework based in tension between that which envisoned policy makers and that which is pratical practioners.  Stated another way the tension between that which is possible and that which is.

A word of causion, your last sentence is troubling in this sense, simply because I can agree on the defination or meaning of a word, phrase, sentence does not make a coausl connection to your claim of less disagreement between the two parties.  I may agree with your definations of every word, phrase, sentence but still very much opposed  to your vision.

A great source to get a "foothold of the differing philosophies" you may chose from is the Stanford Encycclopedia of Philosophy.

Hope this helps,

Douglas 

Douglas,

I understand and much appreciate your coverage of the philosophies and lines of reasoning in your post. It provided a comprehensive overview from which to select a focus. I suggest Josmar perform more reading and literature review in order to identify the key elements of his topic and to narrow his focus.

Janet