There has been a long-standing divide between the world of the academic and that of the practitioner. Many individuals have been reluctant or unaware of these different roles. This “research-practitioner” gap can be seen in many fields, including the field of conflict analysis and resolution (CAR).1 This article explores the idea of merging these two paradigms through the concept of pracademics.
Conflict resolution, which has multidisciplinary roots, derives its strength from the multitude of paradigms that build its foundation. However, as it continues to sprout, the views within the field are moving towards practice-to-theory-to-practice collaborative learning. Through collaborative learning, academics and practitioners can reinforce the field as a whole, while bringing in new insights and ways of thinking.
What is a Pracademic?
A pracademic has one foot in each door of both the academic world and the practitioner world. This is not someone who simply received their degree and started working for a non-governmental organization in the field. A pracademic is active in the academic setting as well as being an active practitioner. In one case, a practitioner could start out working in the field. He or she may find what they are doing fascinating, however they want to know and understand the theories behind it. This story could be told the other way around, where a scholar might want to put their theories to practice in the field.
Most pracademics are not self-proclaimed. For example, as an academic Cheryl Picard theorizes and writes about Insight theory and the Insight approach; however, others might identify her as a practitioner because of her active role in various mediation processes. Andrea Bartoli, Borislava Manojlovic, and Jacquie Greiff have created a matrix that examines the world of practice and academia while defining four distinct roles within. “Practitioner first represents an individual for whom doing practice takes precedence over academic work”.2 These are the practitioners in the field who find practice as their main form of work. On the other extreme, there is the Academic Puritan, which “epitomizes a person dedicated primarily to academic writing, documenting, theorizing, teaching and researching.”3 These individuals fall completely on the academic side of the spectrum.
According to Bartoli et al., there are two other roles that arise between these extremes. The first being a “low-intensity inquirer”, described as “a beginner or novice in the field, or alternately one who dabbles in both academia and practice without necessarily committing to either.”4 This is not a pracademic because technically they are neither represented in academia nor practice. Commitment to both academic and practice is not the only necessity to be considered a pracademic, but also the idea that one is so called “active” in both. None of these positions are completely static. Many practitioners begin as academics or visa-versa. On the other hand, some individuals may be pracademics and decide to leave the field and focus solely on theory or research because of a specific project or job.
The final position, balanced inquirer, seems to be where the CAR field is headed. Balanced inquirers are interested in understanding their practice through an academic lens or taking their theories and testing them in the field. The balanced inquirer or pracademic exists in a space shared by both theory and practice. I believe these are ideal roles for CAR graduates, but many of them must juggle different roles depending on their careers.
In order for the CAR field to grow, define itself, and become stronger, it is necessary to promote this intersection. Combining theory and practice can enhance our understanding of both worlds and merge ideas to create new insights into shaping constructive conflict. Pracademics provides for collaborative learning. There is currently a divide between those who study conflict in an academic setting and those who work to transform conflict on the ground. Pracademics can bridge this divide between the two worlds. There are already many in the CAR field who would be considered pracademics, however many more are needed if we intend to promote positive peace.
Why the Divide?
Academics often face the criticism that they have their heads in the clouds and all the thinking they do measures up to no action. On the other hand, the stereotype about practitioners is that they act before they think and, therefore, their actions are not well thought out or planned. While there are serious criticisms of each side, it is important to find solutions to these critiques. Both approaches rely on each other in different ways. Engaging practitioners and academics in a collaborative learning process could only strengthen the field as a whole. Sometimes the realities of the field might not be visible in an academic setting. Also, in the practical world, some insights from certain theories and frameworks could strengthen their practice. While one cannot exist without the other, a stark divide between the two only hinders progress of conflict resolution. This divide goes deeper into the debate between conflict resolution being a taught or learned skill or an art form that we create.
Art or Skill?
Is conflict resolution a skill or an art? Is it possible to learn the skills required to become a conflict resolver or are they instinctive or intuitive? I believe it must be both. In The Moral Imagination, John Paul Lederach (who is an example of a pracademic in the field), argues for use of both art and skill in peace building. Conflict resolution “… is to seek the genuine connection of discipline and art, the integration of skill and aesthetics.”5 As scholars, when we study theory or skills in the field of conflict resolution, what we are really doing is learning from the past. We are taking a glimpse into others’ ideas and mistakes, strengths and weaknesses. We then learn from this and build upon it. This is where the art comes into play. Artful use of a theory in the field could give the peacebuilder greater insight and reflective opportunity to see a larger picture and implement various projects more efficiently. In turn, lessons learned and practice can inspire theory of conflict resolution. Combining art and skill, practice and theory, and academic and practitioner roles can bring new and imaginative insights and ideas. I believe this is where the field of conflict analysis and resolution should be heading.
The Mole Hill
Becoming a pracademic is not always a conscious choice for some in the field of conflict resolution, however this role is becoming ever more popular. No longer do individuals need to restrict themselves to strictly academic or practitioner work. There are, however, problems that pracademics must face in the developing field. The pros to promoting pracademia may outweigh the cons. However, it is important to keep in mind some of the factors that can be problematic for pracademics. For example, because of this traditional divide in the field, there is a problem of either academics or practitioners taking pracademic work seriously. There is the argument that you cannot be “fully” in one field or another, because you divide yourself between the two. In order to overcome this divide, there needs to be an understanding of the importance of pracademics. An individual immersed in both fields, that combines both their academic work and practice, can gain a more holistic view of whatever conflict they pursue. Having this differing perception could possibly lead to improved ideas or practices in the field. What is important is to progress past this idea that both worlds are separate and should stay that way. Even if an individual’s goal is not to become a pracademic, the idea of opening up lines of communication between academics and practitioners in the field is still a step in the right direction. In order for our field to advance, it is imperative that collaborative learning and imagination be embraced. In the battle between academia and practicum both sides can come out triumphant and build a stronger more comprehensive view of the field.
- D. Brian McNatt, Myron Glassman & Aaron Glassman, “The Great Academic-Practitioner Divide: A Tale of Two Paradigms”, Global Education Journal (2010): 6-22. [↩]
- Andrea Bartoli, Borislava Manojlovic & Jacquie Geiff, Conflict Resolution Practice and Practices: The Case of the School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, Paper “Practice and Practices: Experimenting with Peacemak- ing at S-CAR” presented at the School for Conflict Analysis’ Conference on Conflict Resolution Practice. George Mason University, Arlington, VA (April 19-21, 2012), 5. [↩]
- ibid., 5. [↩]
- ibid., 5. [↩]
- John Paul Lederach, The Moral Imagination (New York: Oxford Press, 2005), 70. [↩]