Is There Really a Scholar-Practitioner Gap? An Institutional Analysis

T he relationship between scholars and practitioners is a continuing source of concern to both communities.1 Each side complains about the insularity of the other and routinely points to gaps that separate them. Alexander George and other scholars found weak interest and lackluster capacity on the part of academy-based social scientists to contribute knowledge deemed useful to the policy community ~George 1993; Nincic and Lepgold 2000!. For their part, leading policy practitioners have bitterly complained about what they see as the growing irrelevance of scholarly work to the design and conduct of statecraft ~Newsom 1995–1996!. In this essay, I take a different tack. I argue that despite deep and longstanding concerns about the putative scholar-practitioner “gap,” the situation is not nearly as dire as many have claimed. In some respects, the situation has actually improved, as reflected in the vast range of new knowledge available and the new channels through which it can be obtained. The flaw in most arguments is that observers misunderstand the recent evolution of the institutions that supply, and use, scholarly analysis, as they have become more differentiated. As traditional disciplinary departments ~especially political science and economics! have stepped back from past public engagement, other institutions have been more than willing to take their place: witness the steady growth of think tanks, schools of public policy, and professional organizations willing to supply, in the words of the president of the Social Science Research Council, “necessary knowledge” ~Calhoun 2004!. But if the overall situation is reasonably well-balanced between the need for and supply of analysis for action, the discipline of political science has drifted away from relevance, engagement, and impact, and shows few signs of changing course. In this essay, I describe and account for institutional differentiation in these communities of practice, and point to some of their positive and negative implications for the political science profession, and for public affairs. While these issues have been debated across the board, I concentrate on the discourse as it unfolds in the foreign affairs community, with which I am most familiar, having worked as analyst and practitioner across several institutions including the White House National Security Council, as a fellow in foreign policy think tanks, and as a teacher and author on international affairs. The debates in this domain have been especially robust, and the intense pressures of globalization provide a particularly clear window into the urgency and importance of current trends in knowledge-action relations. Beyond increased institutional differentiation among the suppliers of knowledge, several other shifts are relevant here. The demand for policy-relevant analysis of foreign affairs has also become more institutionally varied, with many more government agencies, nongovernmental organizations ~NGOs!, and corporations seeking new knowledge. Also, recent shifts in the theory and methods of the discipline reinforce these trends. Finally, the substance of modern policy problems has itself become more multifaceted. Under the accelerating pressures of globalization and the information revolution, policy-makers confront a more complex, fast-changing, and confusing array of substantive issues from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction to environmental degradation, and seek assistance wherever they can. In a short essay like this I must set aside some issues I recognize as critical, such as the importance of undergraduate education and citizenship training. I turn to some of these concerns in the Conclusion. A few quick definitions. “Practitioner” covers a variety of professional roles and activities, and while I focus mostly on those inside government foreign affairs agencies, “practitioners” also operate in non-profit organizations and the private sector. As busy decision-makers, they rely on the studies, reports, and other raw material provided by analysts. Of course, the line between analyst and activist practitioner is not always sharp ~Wilson 2000!. Still, it makes sense to draw a distinction between them and “scholars,” i.e., those appointed to traditional departments of political science ~or economics or sociology!; faculty of public policy schools, or specialized research or teaching institutes on university campuses. Of course, individual scholars vary considerably in their commitment to particular theoretical and methodological approaches, balancing quantitative and qualitative work, or normative or empirical theory, or generalist or specialist orientation.2 These choices may affect their commitment to social action and practice. But their principal institutional responsibility is to reflect and analyze, not to act. Within the scholarly community, however, I want to distinguish further between public affairs schools and mainline departments, whose incentive structures now differ significantly and whose professional cultures demonstrate internal regularities. It is now possible to speak of two very different orientations to the value of policy engagement.3 Finally, there is also a growing universe of think tanks and trade associations where scholars and analysts are active. What importance has this topic beyond mere professional curiosity? At a time when America and other nations are shifting toward more knowledgeintensive societies, where the success and sustainability of non-profits, firms, universities, and government agencies hinge increasingly on their capacities to obtain, manage, and employ “necessary knowledge”, scholar-practitioner relations loom large as critical social linkages whether in education, bio-technology, information technology, or other substantive fields. In this context, it matters a lot how decision-makers in government, private firms, and non-profits gain access to the information and knowledge they need, when they need it, in the form they require. With the need for and supply of new knowledge increasingly driven by global dynamics, it also makes sense to trace scholar-practitioner relations in international affairs. Ernest J. Wilson III is professor of government and politics and African American studies at the University of Maryland, College Park. Previously at the University of Michigan and Penn, he served on the National Security Council and worked in several foreign policy think tanks, including CSIS and the Council on Foreign Relations.