Discussion: View Thread

The idea of a 'scholarly practitioner' has been around for a long time
in parts of the public sector, particularly in Health and Education. It
links with ideas such as evidenced based practice, teacher- researcher
and so forth - is the notion any different from the idea of a
reflective practitioner? except, of course that reflection has never
been any guarantee of effectiveness.

Itseems to be part of a wider trend that is connected with a decline in
the academy's preeminent position as the originator and disseminator of
knowledge for use by others. Nowadays there is much more emphasis on
co-production and practitioners investigating their own practice

On the other hand professional education has always occupied the
netherworld of Higher Education trying to avoid the 'dialogue of death'
- the need to escape the criticisms of academics that it isn't
rigourous enough and the criticisms of practitioners that it isn't
relevent enough -
or maybe different cultures experience this issue in different ways.


John Williams
Sheffield Hallam University
UK

In a message dated 99-01-23 16:25:06 EST, Jack Ring wrote:

<< The study conjectured that the academically inclined practitioners seemed
more concerned with their research than with the ultimate wellbeing of their
patients. >>

Returning from the analysis of the health care study discussed in the above
cite, leads us to the question of: Is the above criticism a common finding...
specifically:

Do scholarly researchers lose the practical orientation of the practitioner?
Could we hypothesize that the scholarly researcher becomes "fixated" on the
theoretical framework and neglects the practice of the practitioner? (This is
not the first time that I have heard this observation.)

Can a practitioner really be scholarly by the academician definition? (Are
they precluded from the "status" because they're practitioners?) Could it be
that you are either one, or the other?

Or, as we've already had suggested (by Robbie Bezemek and Erwin Rausch),
should they be classified as practitioner scholars (so as to rank order the
primary occupation)?

IF scholars and practitioners really are opposites (and never the two shall
meet), can a different status be identified to allow for a compromise?
Whereas, they aren't scholarly practitioners, but are ????

Very Respectfully,

Bruce Pawlak