Bridging the Gap: Pracademics in Foreign Policy

Abstract

In his seminal work Bridging the Gap: Theory and Practice in Foreign Policy, Alexander George (1993) lamented the great divide between academia and the foreign policymaking community, arguing that greater interaction between scholars and policymakers would produce better policy. We share George's belief that scholars and practitioners each have much to offer the other. In fact, a wide spectrum of opportunities exists for scholars in the field of political science to engage in meaningful public service that can enhance every aspect of their careers, as well as contribute to international understanding.

Defining and exploring pracademia: identity, community, and engagement

“…Pracademics in the literature can be found in a variety of fields: conflict resolution, negotiation and mediation (Avruch and Nan, 2013; Susskind, 2013; Volpe and Chandler, 2001; Vuković, 2017; Wilson, 2019), law (Schneider, 2013), nursing (Andrew and Wilkie, 2007), policing (Braga, 2016; Willis, 2016), political science (Posner, 2009; McDonald and Mooney, 2011), project management (Walker, 2010), public administration and non-profit management (Powell et al , 2018; Vrentas et al , 2018), organisational studies (Panda, 2014), environmental health and protection (LaPorte and Opp, 2016; Runkle, 2014), and public and foreign policy (Brans and Pattyn, 2017; Murphy and Fulda, 2011). In the field of education, the term pracademic has mainly been restricted to popular educational forums, such as twitter and the blogosphere.…”

“…As the pracademic is someone active in both academia and practice (Collins and Collins, 2019), they can serve as a bridge between scholarly and practice-based worlds, grounding their practice in research, championing research and theory in the workplace, conducting research, and partnering with academics and practice-based professionals (Short, 2006). The notion that the pracademic can “bridge the gap” between practical and academic aspects of a field, and even cross it (Murphy and Fulda, 2011), is based on the common premise that there is a gap and a disconnect between the worlds of practice and scholarship (Butler and Schnellert, 2008). The pracademic acts as a conduit between research and daily practice who lives in both worlds and enhances their own research and practice through the pracademic lens (Kormanik et al , 2009).…”

“…Yet in all these hyphenated words there is always one identity in the first position. Murphy and Fulda (2011) describe this duality as a “revolving door” through which the pracademic circles between worlds. This duality or multiplicity leads to dissonance in terms of identity and belongingness.…”

“…They are insider-outsider, or outsider-insider, never quite belonging in each space. Not only that but moving into the world of practice can negatively impact a person's academic career prospects (Murphy and Fulda, 2011), and engaging in scholarship is not often valued, and may even be questioned or criticised, in the world of practice.…”

“…There may be a tangle of cognitive, relational, and emotional reasons why a person does the kind of boundary spanning work that is often without obvious measures, professional recognition, or financial reward. This is work that can be personally and professionally exciting and gratifying (Murphy and Fulda, 2011). For example, while we authors are engaged in networks across and between research and practice, we have found that in practice spaces our (often unpaid) academic work is disregarded or even disparaged; and that in academic circles the work of practice is sometimes seen as without value, not “seen”, or a sideline to the main scholarly event.…”