For someone whose role is all about sharing and inclusivity, I find myself thinking a lot about boundaries. The other day these were the boundaries between engagement theory and practice and, in correlation, the boundaries between researchers and practitioners of engagement. Now this something I occasionally mull over as part of my own learning and how I can best support the University, but this was a more focused reflection thanks to a workshop organised by the NCCPE and my colleague Jana. Given that the room was mostly full of engagement practitioners (so, people like me) it was no surprise that there was a general consensus that we are caught up in the "juggernaut of practice" - a great phrase coined by one of the participants. I wouldn't dare to speak for others but it got me thinking as to why I don't use learning from the academic sphere to help inform my practice sufficiently. When I was an academic it was second nature to learn as much as I could before attempting to try things out in the lab. So why am I minding the gap rather than bridging it?
The trite answer is that I don't have time. It's the easiest claim to make, mainly because it's true, but it's also the easiest to dismiss. If learning can genuinely improve my practice then I would be foolish not to put the effort in now, knowing that I would reap the rewards later. When asked about this issue, I commonly reply that I struggle to understand the academic literature on engagement. Without a social science background a lot of the terminology baffles me, not to mention the context in which this learning is set. And there's always a reference within a reference, like a set of Russian dolls. But again, this is something that can be overcome with a bit of patience.
So my revelation the other day was realising exactly why I don't engage with theory - I don't have a voice there. When discussing co-production we always talk about the importance of experience beyond academia and how this knowledge, and those who have it, should be valued at an equal level*. And amongst my practitioner peers, I feel (or at least hope) that this is the case. But on the academic side, I can be a research participant or contributor of data, but I've never been a co-author. I'm not saying there aren't some amazing people who manage to span both fields, although usually they have a relevant academic background first. But as an individual, I feel disenfranchised by the boundary and my perception (probably misguided) that academics have a monopoly on this knowledge. It's perfectly feasible for us an engagement community to come up with solutions that empower both academics and practitioners - whether it's a journal or conference that encourages joint papers, or funding that equally supports this kind of collaboration. However, until there is an clear route for us to work together to develop genuine outputs, I will continue to notice - and be bothered by - the space between theory and practice. So in both senses of the word, I will keep on minding the gap.
* If I was more up on my theory I'd be dropping in a reference here. But, as this post explains, this clearly isn't the case
