Bridging the Gap
By Stacy Stryjewski

When I first sat down to write this column, I did what most experienced writers do…Google® the topic. After several rounds of search criteria, I came upon links that highlighted “Academia vs. Industry” and “Academia vs. ‘The Real World’.” I was surprised to see it in writing—“the real world.” The artificial battle sounds a bit like a scene from The Matrix, where professors and scholars have mistakenly settled for the red pill and now live in a world where classrooms hold pods disguised as students. I exaggerate the point but it does seem like a statement of challenge that places academics in a position of self-justification and alienation.

The challenge though is not in defining a real world. It is in the separation of worlds. It is in the use of the connector “vs.” to establish an automatic duality, a battle between entities. By using versus to describe the relationship, we create a boxing match where punching, ducking, fancy footwork and time limits dictate a winner and a loser. It creates a perception of opposition. What are we in opposition about? Our identities? Our work? Our levels of knowledge?

When we call ourselves academics or industry professionals we are aligning ourselves with a concept of what those words mean on a larger scale. There is a general understanding about what those identities imply and a sense that if you are one, you cannot possibly be the other. This is a false message that gets perpetuated in and across both “worlds.” It is more useful to start exploring how we can change this perception and create statements and actions that reflect a truer nature of interdependence and cooperation across those labels.

So how do we unite academics and other professionals who also contribute to the creation of knowledge? How do we change the perception that the work that gets done in educational institutions is somehow practice that doesn’t quite count? How can academics reach a lay audience with their scholarly publications?

To begin to answer these questions, it is important to consider language and words. Words create our worlds. Categories are useful containers of concepts that help us understand and navigate our world. They give us instantaneous snapshots of understanding, accompanied by images and expectations. Imagine going into a grocery store that did not shelve food according to categories. How would we find the Cheerios if they were next to the canned corn? Categories provide familiar context that help us make choices and feel rational and safe.

But categories about people can easily become stereotypes—those generalizations about people, organizations, institutions, political parties and religions that inadequately sum up the salient qualities of a group. Of course, as individuals we belong to certain communities or categories. The “us” factor. And with every “us” follows a “them”—those who are not like us and therefore warrant our suspicion. Consider again the weight of negative perceptions when we see “academics vs. industry.” Which one are you? Us or them? I wonder what an academic looks like. Can academics be easily identified without the line of letters after their names? Who is industry? Does that include the receptionist at the registrar’s office and the scientist working for a large pharmaceutical company? Seeing beyond categories is a necessary first step in finding the overlap in this false dichotomy. Our perceptions of the “other” shape our expectations and our expectations determine what we see, hear, and conveniently omit to prove our points. So much so that “seeing is believing” should be “believing is seeing.”

Often, there are more differences within groups than there are between them. Open a college catalogue and consider the variety or personalities looking to pursue education in areas from accounting to zoology. Each field carries a philosophy and methodology different from the others and within each field individuals vary their personal approaches to their work. And think about how many jobs and personalities you can list in one industry alone. It’s easier to recognize the range of differences within our own groups, but we are much more likely to generalize about our experiences even with only a few others to establish a firm “them.” The recognition of the richness of these differences can lead us to the next step in the collaboration process: the appreciation for all contributions across professions.

Researchers like Donald Schon and David Kolb began to question the value that is placed on knowledge and the division that exists between theory, research, and practice. Theory and research hold noble places at the importance table and little attention has been given to practitioners in all areas of work. Practitioners have tacit knowledge—a familiarity with what they do without the language to describe it. If you were asked how you ride a bike, what would you say? All of the steps that we don’t think about when hopping on that bike and riding down the street incorporate tacit knowledge. A nurse working the night shift in a busy intensive care unit has specific skills that she uses without thinking about them. An academic researcher finding alternative fuel sources also has specific knowledge. Which is more valuable?

There is an artificial separation between intellectual reflection and active practice. We all contribute equally to a larger body of knowledge. Truly recognizing this value can help those who may be intimidated by intellectuals, or feel subordinate based on job titles, regain a sense of power and self worth. Scholars who recognize the importance of all practice can invite the “real world” in without diluting their efforts. Change starts with individual action and this small shift in perception can lead to big improvements in partnership.

Another notion that challenges the connection between academics and the general public is the concern that scholarly publications exclude others through the use of elaborate language and abstract concepts. I can only scratch the surface on this topic here, and I bring us back to the ideas of recognition and perceptions about the “other.”

When we enter the educational system at a young age we begin to learn how to debate. Our success in school often rests on how well we can argue and prove another wrong. This narrow approach to learning gets cultivated throughout our educational journey, no matter where it ends. We become comfortable and almost needy for an “either/or” approach. Slowly, we are recognizing the value of an alternative “and/with” approach that broadens our range of solutions and satisfaction.

Academics who publish work are in a particularly difficult position of either/or. Even if they want to reach new audiences they still need to get through peer review, a process that can be quite adversarial if you are disproving someone else’s work. And that is often the case with scholarly writing. Research and inquiry are done to establish new approaches, thus challenging the old ones. There can be a backlash by colleagues if a certain level of integrity is not maintained, and writers risk the loss of respect within the academic community.

This “either/or” philosophy is what perpetuates the separation of worlds. How is an academic able to build this bridge without support and common goals from within the community? Much more can be said in this area and I claim no expertise in experience, but there needs to be a conscious desire within the community to open their worlds and words to allow for the benefit of expanding knowledge and growth. The general public also can demand different literature that addresses intelligent issues in a readable way for the majority.

These are just a few considerations for reflection in an effort to move beyond the “vs.” and separation. There are many individuals who work in both areas of academia and industry. Thankfully, they do not fit neatly into just one category. If we can move beyond these false perceptions, we can more fully understand the inadequacies of the competition.

To work together means to broaden the scope of opportunities for learning, creative collaboration, and yes, broader social change. Academics need the general public and industry; business and administrative professionals in all realms of society can benefit from being more receptive to the messages and lessons that our scholars constantly challenge and shape.

Stacy Stryjewski teaches at George Mason University in the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution. She offers training and consultation in conflict resolution, dialogue and staff development. She can be reached at sstry@verizon.net