Journey Through the Groan Zone with Academics and Practitioners: Bridging Conflict and Difference to Strengthen Disaster Risk Reduction and Recovery Work

Abstract

Academic-practitioner divides in disaster management and research can be persistent and pernicious, bearing consequences for disaster survivors and future affected populations. The gap between disaster professionals and academic researchers is often treated as an unavoidable structural problem or a neutral accident of professional silos and circumstance. We suggest that these gaps are not neutral, and that they can and must be overcome. With hundreds of millions of people affected by disaster each year and recovery costs skyrocketing, there is urgency in connecting researcher and practitioner knowledges to avoid expensive mistakes and most importantly, to decrease human suffering. Yet the difficulties that US academic anthropologists and practitioners experienced in their efforts to collaborate became evident in a cross-sector National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded workshop on the relevance of culture in disaster work. We suggest and illustrate how more systematic cross-field communication can be operationalized through engaging in an ongoing and relational process of bridging. Such a process can offer long-term benefits to the people and institutions involved, dramatically enhance the science of disaster management, and help reduce the social and material costs of disaster impacts.

Keywords

Academic and practitioner divide / Applied research / Cross-sector communication / Culture and disaster / Disaster anthropology / Disaster management

References

[1] Ammerman A, Smith TW, Calancie L. Practice-based evidence in public health: Improving reach, relevance, and results. Annual Review of Public Health, 2014, 35: 47-63

[2] Bartunek JM, Rynes SL. Academics and practitioners are alike and unlike. Journal of Management, 2014, 40(5): 1181-1201

[3] Boyer EL. Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate, 1990, New York: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching

[4] Boyer E. The scholarship of engagement. Journal of Public Service and Outreach, 1996, 1(1): 11-20.

[5] Browne, K.E. 2013. Standing in the need: Communication failures that increased suffering after Katrina. Anthropology Now, 30 March 2013. http://anthronow.com/print/standing-in-the-need-communication-failures-that-increased-suffering-after-katrina. Accessed 20 Jun 2018.

[6] Browne KE. Standing in the need: Culture, comfort, and coming home after Katrina, 2015, Austin: University of Texas Press

[7] Bushouse BK, Jacobson WS, Lambright KT, Llorens JJ, Morse RS, Poocharoen O-O. Crossing the divide: Building bridges between public administration practitioners and scholars. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2011, 21(S1): i99-i112

[8] Carcasson M. Tackling wicked problems through deliberative engagement. National Civic Review, 2016, 105(1): 44-47

[9] Cook J, Elwell N. Bridging the academic-practitioner divide. Routledge Third World Quarterly, 2014, 35(3): 507-550

[10] Eriksson J, Sundelius B. Molding minds that form policy: How to make research useful. International Studies Perspectives, 2005, 6(1): 51-71

[11] Fadiman A. The spirit catches you and you fall down: A Hmong child, her American doctors, and the collision of two cultures, 2012, New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux

[12] Garland J. One step forward, two steps backward? Difficulties and dilemmas with connecting hate crime policy and research. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 2016, 27(6): 627-639

[13] Gray DE, Iles P, Watson S. Spanning the HRD academic-practitioner divide: Bridging the gap through Mode 2 research. Journal of European Industrial Training, 2011, 35(3): 247-263

[14] Gunasekaran S, Krishnadevarajan P, Lawrence FB. Bridging the research-practice divide through the intermediary model. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 2017, 19(3): 314-330

[15] Hutt MD, Walker BA. Bridging the theory-practice gap in business marketing: Lessons from the field—The JBBM at 21. Routledge Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 2015, 22(1–2): 67-72

[16] Kaner S. Facilitator’s guide to participatory decision-making, 2014, San Francisco: Wiley

[17] Marlowe J, Bogen R. Young people from refugee backgrounds as a resource for disaster risk reduction. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2015, 14(Part 2): 125-131

[18] O’Meara K, Eatman T, Petersen S. Advancing engaged scholarship in promotion and tenure: A roadmap and call for reform. Liberal Education, 2015, 101(3): 52-57.

[19] Posner P. The pracademic: An agenda for re-engaging practitioners and academics. Public Budgeting and Finance, 2009, 29(1): 12-26

[20] Scaratti G, Galuppo L, Gorli M, Gozzoli C, Ripamonti S. The social relevance and social impact of knowledge and knowing. Management Learning, 2017, 48(1): 7-64

[21] Trainor, J.E., and T. Subbio. 2014. Critical issues in disaster science and management: A dialogue between researchers and practitioners. FEMA Higher Education Project. https://udspace.udel.edu/bitstream/handle/19716/13418/Critical%20Issues%20in%20Disaster%20Science%20and%20Management%20-%20Trainor.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Accessed 1 Jul 2018.

[22] Trainor JE, Stern EK, Subbio T. Rodríguez H, Donner W, Trainor JE. On bridging research and practice in disaster science and management: Unified system or impossible mission?. Handbook of disaster research, 2018, Berlin: Springer 161-178

[23] Wai, J., and D. Miller. 2015. Here’s why academics should write for the public. The Conversation. US edition. http://theconversation.com/heres-why-academics-should-write-for-the-public-50874. Accessed 27 Jun 2018.