Bruce,
I see this two ways,
1) how scholastics can integrate the "practical" side of things into their
activities and
2) how pactitioners can integrate scholastic/academic approaches.
On the first point, in France it is often the case that professors in
business schools are actively involved in company activities and consulting.
We are required to spend time with companies, follow students in their
traning periods, help companies etc. This is underscored by the fact that
the business schools are supported ($$) by the Chambers of Commerce.
The second point is more tricky. I've noticed more demand by companies for
individuals with advanced degrees as they are seeking to improve their
innovative / creative capacities. The job market for highly qualified
indviduals is expanding in this area. HOWEVER, I personally think that the
opportunities available to holders of doctorates, etc. have access to a
limited market. This may be due to a reticence on the part of HR directors
as they fear they will be bored and demotivated by their work. Scholarly /
academic qualities are not necessarily sought in all fields. This comes
back to the old adage of "those who can't .. teach".
Dan Evans
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De: Bruce Pawlak [SMTP:
Bfp2000@AOL.COM]
> Date: mardi 19 janvier 1999 09:44
> À:
MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> Objet: A New Thread: Is the scholarly-practitioner mythical or
> real?
>
> Ladies and Gentlemen of MG-ED-DIV:
>
> Recently an interesting debate has surfaced at my institution. The
> debate
> surrounds the concept of the "scholarly-practitioner." I am involved in a
> professional doctoral program that strongly advocates the concept of the
> scholarly-practitioner.
>
> From my personal investigation thus far, the scholarly-practitioner
> debate
> (from the academician point of view) seems to center around the issue of
> the
> "appropriateness" of applied research in the scholarly environment and
> what
> scholarly contributions to the epistemology of the discipline the doctoral
> student makes after graduation. There seems to be concern regarding the
> preparation of scholarly-practitioners from professional doctorates to
> enter
> the world of academe.
>
> How have other institutions dealt with this issue?
>
> What definitions of the scholarly-practitioner were chosen? What
> behaviors (knowledge, skills and abilities) were associated with the
> scholarly-practitioner? Was the issue of continuing education or periodic
> scholarly achievements (publishing) addressed?
>
> Was the concept rejected? Why? Was an alternate concept
> embraced?
>
> Any thoughts from the MG-ED-DIV community would be welcomed (be they
> from
> scholars, practitioners, or scholarly-practitioners). The debate is
> growing
> and the faculty and students seem to welcome the discourse. I am in the
> midst
> of preparing a paper on this subject for one of my classes and with
> appropriate "tweeking" I hope to publish my findings afterwards.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Bruce Pawlak