"Technical rationality is by no means dead; on the contrary, it is on the rise—or, rather, seems in some ways and places on the rise and in others in decline. In more than one medical school, for example, the faculty is divided between those who emphasize the psychosocial dimensions of illness and the clinical importance of uncertain situations where there is no biotechnical "right answer."
In the social sciences, there is a powerful counterreaction to the sorts of physical sciences modes of social research that flourished after World War II. In the past twenty years, there has been a perceptible movement toward such Continental approaches as critical theory, hermeneutics, and phenomenology. Nevertheless, some departments of sociology deny tenure to faculty members who do not take a mathematical approach to the discipline; and in cognitive psychology, the movement toward cognitive sciences, with its information-processing and artificial intelligence models of mind, is currently predominant.
Some schools fight over the choice of direction or divide into separate, more or less isolated camps. Some schools tilt in one direction or another. some fields do the same. In urban design, architecture, and urban planning, for example, the heyday of analytic modeling seems to be over, at least for the time being. Schools of education, traditionally weak in quantitative, analytic modeling, sometimes put on a show of technical rationality, adopting techniques and frameworks that appear more precise than they are.
The growing power of technical rationality, where it is growing, reduces the professional school's disposition to educate students for artistry in practice and increases its disposition to train them as technicians. And the perceived constriction of professional autonomy makes practitioners feel less free to exercise their capacities for reflection-in-action.
(Donald Schön, Educating the Reflective Practitioner 1987 pg314-315)