No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Adventures in the multiverse: a collective experience of pracademia
Abstract
This paper explores the experience of a collective of pracademics who
work together at the Centre for Human Security and Social Change at
La Trobe University. While there is some emerging scholarship on
pracademics as individuals, in this paper we seek to fill a gap in the
literature related to the collective practice of a pracademic team.
Developed through a structured process of reflection and critical
engagement with our own practice, we analyse the challenges and
tensions inherent in working as pracademics navigating multiple
universes. This includes the impact of misalignment of incentives in
academia and industry, our identities as largely white researchers
supporting locally led development in the Asia-Pacific and Indigenous
Australia, and our positionality within the wider systems we seek to
change. We offer suggestions for how pracademics can exploit the
shifting incentives resulting from the impact agenda, bring practitioner
perspectives to bear on contemporary academic debates, and work
more collectively within and across organisations. Our collective
experience provides insights into how pracademics can carve out space
within academia and play an effective role in informing development
practice.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
While the idea of a gender-sensitive parliament is over 20 years old (Childs & Palmieri, 2023), institutional reforms in the name of gender equality have been slow to materialise around the world. Where change has occurred, it appears to have been catalysed by a limited range of—sometimes confluent—factors including the public airing of allegations of sexual misconduct in the #MeToo era, the increasing salience of gender-sensitive parliament international norms, and the role of feminists in the academy. Celis and Childs (2020) identify feminist academic critical actors as those who rather than simply researching parliamentary change, explicitly undertake institutional (re)design and (re)building work (see also Childs, 2024). In this article, we uncover the work undertaken by feminists in an Australian academic institution to support the 2021 independent inquiry of the Australian Human Rights Commission into Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces. This work—undertaken by the authors as both insiders and outsiders—informed the analysis and recommendations in the Australian Human Rights Commission’s report, and since its launch, has also kept pressure on the various bodies entrusted with implementing gender-sensitive changes. We argue that feminists in the academy are uniquely positioned to navigate insider and outsider roles in support of gender-sensitive parliamentary reform.
Connecting research to practice by knowledge brokering in education, which is considered here as functionally synonymous with knowledge mobilisation, is currently under‐researched, difficult to define, and not well understood. This narrative synthesis review curates recent research concerning characterisations of knowledge brokering in education, considering the models and metaphors that have been used to describe and prescribe its activities, and then goes on to consider the limited evidence on effective knowledge brokering and what this suggests about possibilities for its evaluation in education contexts, which is considered necessary and urgent. Interpersonal relationships and social contexts are considered key to educational knowledge brokering, which has also been described as transforming knowledge, often by mediation, boundary‐spanning, and/or bridging. It is suggested that those doing the work of knowledge brokering (knowledge brokers) should have a deep understanding of the context and terrain of both research and practice (and perhaps policy) in education. A need is proposed for theoretical and empirical work to define the purposes and pitfalls of educational knowledge brokering in practice, related to issues of trust and credibility, and to enable evaluation and accountability to take place.
There is a growing recognition of the effectiveness of locally led processes of social change and development. However, most of the case studies that have been discussed in the literature are focused on programs run by international development agencies. This article examines three locally led processes of change in the Pacific. These include the Simbo for Change Initiative in the Solomon Islands, the Voice in Papua New Guinea and a regional process led by the Green Growth Coalition. We explore how local understandings of leadership, preferences for informal ways of working, holistic ways of thinking, the importance placed upon maintaining good relationships and collective deliberation fundamentally shaped each of the cases. We note how these preferences and ways of working are often seen, or felt, to be at odds with western modes of thought and the practice of development agencies. Finally, we conclude by exploring how these initiatives were supported by external agencies, and suggest further research of this type might provide benchmarks by which Pacific citizens can hold their governments and development agencies to account.
In its crudest form, development has traditionally been about dissecting the political, socio‐economic and cultural processes of black, brown and other subjects of colour in the so‐called global South and finding them regressive, particularly in comparison to the so‐called progressive global North. However, in the midst of a 21st century, de‐colonial scholarly pivot, ‘opening up development’ fundamentally demands turning the colonial, ‘white gaze’ on its head. In particular, contemporary social media movements challenging white supremacy such as #BlackLivesMatter have gained prominence while non‐white development actors such as China have emerged as enticing alternatives. These phenomena have pried open development with both positive and negative results, intended and unintended consequences. This article seeks to put Critical Development Studies into fluid conversation with Critical Race Studies in an examination of how scholars, policy makers and practitioners have simultaneously succeeded and failed in subverting the ‘white gaze’ of development.
The authors describe the history of autoethnography, particularly within the communication discipline; discuss key characteristics of autoethnography and identify the purposes of doing autoethnographic research; and provide three examples of doing and writing autoethnography.
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.
An essential part of Edgar Schein's legacy is his modeling of the role of scholar—practitioner. To better understand this legacy, the authors explored how being a scholar—practitioner is defined by those who ascribe to this role and the challenges and opportunities these individuals face as they go about their work. Their inquiry consisted of 25 interviews, a systematic reflection on their own professional journeys as scholar—practitioners, and a review of others' related work. The authors confirmed that scholar—practitioners identify with the primary tasks of generating new knowledge and improving practice, yet how they prioritize and go about their work varies with where they are on the scholar—practitioner continuum. The authors highlight five themes to clarify the complexities of the role, stimulate further inquiry, continue dialogue, and ultimately lead to the creation of new venues in which scholar—practitioners can thrive and enhance their contributions to the world.
Motivation
The colonial legacies of aid and development in the Pacific continues to be at the centre of policy debate. The ideal is to decolonise and localise the practice of aid and development. However, decolonisation and localisation have become highly contested in their definition and proposed practical approaches. We call decolonisation and localisation ‘decolocalisation.’
Purpose
This paper aims to explore perspectives and proposals for decolocalisation in the Pacific Islands.
Methods and approach
We talked to five key informants, all local to their islands, all with much development experience; we held a focus group; and we combined these insights and learnings with our own experience as Pacific Islanders engaged with development. Our analysis is reflexive.
Findings
Development practice in the Pacific Islands typically overvalues expert knowledge and undervalues local knowledge. Most aid and development discourse stressed financial figures, charts and statistical assertions overwhelmingly from a donor perspective; Pacific non-statistical, human and embodied contextual realities are overlooked or discounted. Hierarchies are created that privilege outsiders and discriminate against islanders.
A practical operationalisation of decolocalisation can begin with the recognition and practice of outsiders yielding and insiders wielding power.
Policy implications
We recommend decolocalisation as a frame to examine and critique colonial vestiges in Pacific aid and development. Decolocalisation can be practiced by outsiders yielding and insiders wielding power in aid and development.
Decolocalisation is not an ultimate solution to a highly complex issue but offers a conceptual position; one that allows Pacific Islander scholars, thought leaders, aid and development practitioners to further unpack the nuances and issues around aid and development from a Pacific Islander perspective.
Though not new, adaptive approaches to development are increasingly becoming mainstream in development discourse and practice. An underlying premise of adaptive development is that outcomes cannot be assumed or planned in advance, such is the case with linear, technical approaches to development. Rather, development programmes must be responsive both to their environment, and to learning along the way in order to find successful pathways to change. Advocating adaptive development, Aidan Craney, Lisa Denney, David Hudson and Ujjwal Krishna highlight the need for adaptability and reflexive practice in development work that centres a strong emphasis on cultivating a deep understanding of the local context and investing in learning. Drawing on case studies from the Philippines, Sri Lankan and Oceania, the authors offer examples of adaptive management, problem-driven iterative adaptation (PDIA), and thinking and working politically (TWP) as a way of providing pedagogies, strategies and tools relevant to students and practitioners of development.
Governments play a major role in the development process, and constantly introduce reforms and policies to achieve developmental objectives. Many of these interventions have limited impact, however; schools get built but kids don’t learn, IT systems are introduced but not used, plans are written but not implemented. These achievement deficiencies reveal gaps in capabilities, and weaknesses in the process of building state capability. This book addresses these weaknesses and gaps. It starts by providing evidence of the capability shortfalls that currently exist in many countries, showing that many governments lack basic capacities even after decades of reforms and capacity-building efforts. The book then analyzes this evidence, identifying capability traps that hold many governments back—particularly related to isomorphic mimicry (where governments copy best practice solutions from other countries that make them look more capable even if they are not more capable) and premature load bearing (where governments adopt new mechanisms that they cannot actually make work, given weak extant capacities). The book then describes a process that governments can use to escape these capability traps. Called PDIA (problem-driven iterative adaptation), this process empowers people working in governments to find and fit solutions to the problems they face. The discussion about this process is structured in a practical manner so that readers can actually apply tools and ideas to the capability challenges they face in their own contexts. These applications will help readers devise policies and reforms that have more impact than those of the past.
Iterative approaches to development under banners such as ‘thinking and working politically’ and ‘doing development differently’ build upon decades-old commitments to fostering locally led and -owned development. These approaches are increasingly popular with academics and development practitioners. In this paper we argue that outsiders seeking to deliver locally led, politically smart programmes need to either accept that competing priorities, results and values will work to limit the extent of true local ownership, or be sufficiently committed to true local leadership to accept that this may well cut against organisational imperatives. Using the example of the Pacific-based Green Growth Leaders’ Coalition, we discuss how politically tricky partnerships challenge tenets of local leadership and ownership.
Within the context of a competitive UK Higher Education (HE) environment, this paper explores the transitions made by former or current practitioners who are now university academics, referred to in this study (and others) as ‘pracademics’. Drawing together the concepts of pracademia, academic selves and professional identity, this paper makes a tri-fold contribution. First, this case study examines pracademics’ perceptions from a post-1992, UK-based higher education institution (HEI) through collaborative reflexivity. Secondly, it suggests how pracademics’ professional self-identities can be fluid and context-dependent. Thirdly, it explores affinities and tensions between academia and practice, and identifies opportunities for building links between them. In doing so, the research makes a number of specific recommendations. The authors advocate for the recruitment of academics with practitioner experience and the facilitation of their effective transition into and within the HEI environment.
This article reviews the advice from the academic and ‘grey’ literatures to identify a list of dos and don’ts for academics seeking ‘impact’ from their research. From ‘how to do it’ sources, we identify consistent advice on how to engage effectively, largely because it is necessarily vague, safe, and focused primarily on individuals. We then consider the wider policymaking system in which actors make political choices and have unequal access to impact opportunities. We identify the effort it takes to have actual policy impact and how far academics should be expected to go to secure and take credit for it.
This paper examines two distinct forms of practitioner research and makes tentative suggestions around what may constitute good practice in their conduct and reporting, and for the genre of practitioner research as a whole. We also explore their potential benefits and limitations within the wider set of research approaches. Discussion is informed primarily by an earlier review of practitioner research in adult social care and supplemented by knowledge and experience of wider activities related to practitioner research. Discussion is organised in three parts. First, we explore what are generic good practices around all forms of practitioner research. Second, we move to identify particular forms of good practice within what we call Type 1 and Type 2 practitioner research, situating them alongside a practitioner research matrix of stakeholder benefits. Third, we consider the implications of such discussion for how we best stimulate these types of practitioner research.
Critical reflection is normally used in professional learning settings to assist practitioners to improve practice. I have worked for some time using critical reflection in this way with many different types of professionals. Over time, however, I have been impressed by the deeper and more complex understanding of practice experience which the process enables, and which practitioners themselves often cannot initially express. And so I have begun to speculate about the research potential of the critical reflection process, and whether it might be developed as a research method to allow better formulations of practice experience, and therefore, ultimately, better practice.
The synergy between theory and practice is a much sought after, but sometimes elusive, touchstone for the development of public administration programs in the United States. A healthy relationship is vital to the success of both practitioners and academics alike. While the field of public administration was in no small part premised on sustaining a healthy academic-practitioner connection, there has been a retreat from engagement due to deeply rooted trends in both academic and practitioner environments. This article reviews these trends and suggests an agenda for reconnection of these vital linkages.
This book is a sequel to the author's 'Rural development: putting the last first', and attempts to identify the mistakes made by professionals working in nongovernmental organisations, governmental organisations, and universities in their approaches to promoting rural development. Through analysing mistakes of the past and commonly held myths, the author argues that development professionals now need new approaches for interacting, learning and knowing. The role of methodological innovations such as participatory rural appraisal is stressed. It is argued that personal, professional, and institutional change is essential if the realities of the poor are to receive greater recognition. Self-critical awareness and changes in concepts, values, methods and behaviour must be developed by development professionals to promote local participatory approaches and empowerment.
Thinking and Working Politically to Support Developmental Leadership and Coalitions: The Pacific Leadership Program
- Lisa Denney
- Rebecca Mclaren
- Denney Lisa
Denney, Lisa, and Rebecca McLaren. 2016. Thinking and Working Politically to Support Developmental Leadership and
Coalitions: The Pacific Leadership Program. Suva/Birmingham: Pacific Leadership Program/Developmental
Leadership Program.
How Research Can Enhance Policymaking: Improving the Interface Between Academia and Government
- Head Brian
Head, Brian. 2023. "How Research Can Enhance Policymaking: Improving the Interface Between Academia and
Government." The Policymaker, August 16, 2023. https://thepolicymaker.jmi.org.au/how-research-can-enhancepolicymaking-improving-the-interface-between-academia-and-government/.
Nur Syarif Ramadhan, Robandi Yuyun Yuningsih
- Elisabeth Jackson
- Ekawati Liu
- Ishak Salim
- Cucu Saidah
- Joni Yulianto
- Jackson Elisabeth
Jackson, Elisabeth, Ekawati Liu, Ishak Salim, Cucu Saidah, Joni Yulianto, Nur Syarif Ramadhan, Robandi Yuyun Yuningsih,
Surya Sahetapy, Sen Sendjaya, and Erin Wilson. 2023. Finding Self, Leading Others: Leadership Journeys of Persons with
Disabilities in Indonesia. Birmingham: Developmental Leadership Program.
The Importance of Being Pracademic
- Nancy L Macduff
- F Ellen Netting
- Macduff Nancy L.
Macduff, Nancy L., and F. Ellen Netting. 2010. "The Importance of Being Pracademic." International Journal of Volunteer
Administration 27 (1): 43-47.
Practitioner Research
- Brendan Mccormack
- McCormack Brendan
McCormack, Brendan. 2009. "Practitioner Research." In Revealing Nursing Expertise Through Practitioner Inquiry, edited by
Sally Hardy, Angie Titchen, Brendan McCormack, and Kim Manley, 31-54. Oxford and Ames, Iowa: Wiley-Blackwell.
Evidence-based Practice and Practice-Based Evidence.” In Evidence-Based Health Practice
- David Nicolls
- Nicolls David
Anna Gibert, and Yeshe Smith. 2021. Decolonisation and Locally Led Development: A Discussion Paper
- Peni Tawake
- Mereani Rokotuibau
- Jennifer Kalpokas-Doan
- Allan Illingworth
- Tawake Peni
Tawake, Peni, Mereani Rokotuibau, Jennifer Kalpokas-Doan, Allan Illingworth, Anna Gibert, and Yeshe Smith. 2021.
Decolonisation and Locally Led Development: A Discussion Paper. Canberra: ACFID.
Putting Learning at the Centre: Adaptive Development Programming in Practice
- Craig Valters
- Clare Cummings
- Hamish Nixon
- Valters Craig
Valters, Craig, Clare Cummings, and Hamish Nixon. 2016. Putting Learning at the Centre: Adaptive Development
Programming in Practice. London: Overseas Development Institute.
Thinking and Working Politically: What Have We Learned Since
- Teskey Graham
Teskey, Graham. 2022. Thinking and Working Politically: What Have We Learned Since, 2013. https://twpcommunity.org/
wp-content/uploads/2022/01/10-Lessons-learned-in-TWP-final-.pdf.
Africa Power and Politics Programme Discussion Paper 3. Booth, David, and Sue Unsworth
- D Booth
Booth, D. 2008. "A Research Design Fit for Purpose." Africa Power and Politics Programme Discussion Paper 3.
Booth, David, and Sue Unsworth. 2014. Politically Smart, Locally Led Development. London: Overseas Development
Institute.
Hard Truths about Researchers as Honest Brokers
- Harris Rimmer
- Ed Susan
- Sofija Morgan
- Tanevska
Harris Rimmer, Susan, Ed Morgan, and Sofija Tanevska. 2023. "Hard Truths about Researchers as Honest Brokers." The
Policymaker, November 8, 2023. https://thepolicymaker.jmi.org.au/hard-truths-about-researchers-as-honestbrokers/.
Using Action Research and Learning for Politically Informed Programming
- O'keefe
- John T Michael
- Heather Sidel
- Chris Marquette
- David Roche
- Niheer Hudson
- Dasandi
O'Keefe, Michael, John T. Sidel, Heather Marquette, Chris Roche, David Hudson, and Niheer Dasandi. 2014. Using Action
Research and Learning for Politically Informed Programming. Birmingham: Developmental Leadership Program.