I thought I'd add a few comments to the Academics & Practitioners thread.
First off, if I qualify at all, I qualify as a practitioner, not an
academic; I have only a high school diploma and two undergraduate courses
to my credit (psychology and statistics). Yet, I've managed to build
what by any standard is a successful career as a consultant and executive
and, in the course of doing so, to publish extensively (at least one piece
appearing in a refereed journal). However, although much of what I've
written has been lauded as "scholarly," none of it is "academic" and none
of it qualifies as research. As Charlie Wankel once labeled me (and asked
me not to divulge to his class of grad students), I'm an "auto-didact" (a
term that I had to ask Charlie, "What does that mean?").
Frankly, I've found "academics" and "practitioners" to both be valuable
sources of information and knowledge. I'm also less clear than others seem
to be about the line separating the two. Is Peter Drucker, as professor,
an "academic" or, as consultant, is he a "practitioner"? Ditto for Geary
Rummler, Paul Lawrence, Jay Lorsch and any number of others I could
name. I guess I've always focused more on what the person in question had
to say than on the label applying to the person.
What's always been interesting to me is trying to figure out how theory, as
espoused by "academics" (e.g., intervention theory and method as described
by Chris Argyris) applies to the situations I encounter and how what seems
to work in those situations "fits" with established theory. The aim, of
course, has always been one of refining and improving my own practice and,
to the extent possible, contributing in some small way to the advancement
of knowledge and practice in general.
So where is this "academics & practitioners" discussion headed? Is it
intended to establish the relative merits of each group? I doubt that's
doable; both are of immense value. Is it intended to establish some order
of preference or hierarchy or standing between the two? I doubt that's
doable, either. That's like asking if the obverse or reverse of a coin is
the more valuable side. Is it intended to clarify important, productive
and valuable relationships between the two groups, including clear pointers
to folks who are clearly accredited, legitimate members of both camps? I
hope so for, in the last analysis, that is where I think the value lies.
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all.
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting
nickols@safe-t.net
www.nickols.us