Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: Creative Tensions, the Academy, and the Field

Abstract

Universities and communities have rediscovered each other. As problems continue unabated, communities have been asking why their local academic institutions, often supported with tax dollars, seem disinterested in their welfare. Within the academy, changing views of scholarship, the nature of knowledge and, in some cases, pressure from legislators, encourage academics to leave the ivory tower and offer their wares to the community (Lerner & Simon, 1998). The result has been renewed efforts to develop university-community relationships that will benefit local citizenry (for example, Hooper-Briar & Lawson, 1996). Within work, the academic-practitioner relationship is an important part of this effort. In this editorial, I focus on the tension that often accompanies these relationships and considering how such tensions can be productive. Relationship Tension By their nature, relationships invite tension and discord. Relational tension can be chronic or transitory, isolated or pervasive, of great significance or merely annoying. It is experienced at all relational levels, from the interpersonal to the international. Social work academics and work practitioners express this tension in various ways; for example, practitioners complain about the relevance of academic curricula and research; academics are critical of practice and exhort practitioners to be more scientific. Whatever the complaint, such tensions are pervasive and perennial. Intergroup tension arises when interests or goals appear to group members to be mutually exclusive or negatively interdependent. For example, both human services agencies and work programs are necessary for the education of future workers. However, if a work program expects students' field experiences to focus on the translation of classroom theories into practice, and the field agency expects students to learn and carry out organization policies, tension around these differing expectations is likely. Generally, the more important the goals to the groups involved, the greater the tension. Thus, to the extent that agencies rely on students to provide their services and work programs rely on agencies as field sites for their students, tensions may be substantial. Tensions tend to persist in interdependent groups of unequal status. Academics are accorded higher status than practitioners because of their advanced degree, esoteric knowledge, and the prestige associated with higher education. Generally, members of the higher-status group can more easily move into the territory of the lower-status group than vice versa. Academics who hold an MSW can easily claim practice expertise and move into the field; however, the reverse is not true. In addition, knowledge held by the higher status group is considered superior to that of the lower-status group. Academic knowledge, particularly research knowledge, is considered superior to practice wisdom - at least by academics who have the power to define not only superior knowledge but also good practice. The relationship is further complicated by the multiple group memberships, and therefore, multiple identities, that people hold. Thus, individuals will only partially identify with a particular group. For example, a employed at a university may see herself as an academic first and a second. Similarly, a in a management position at a mental health center may see herself as an administrator first and a second. Also, one's hierarchy of identities may shift depending on the context; for example, the identity of social worker may be dominant for practitioners at a work conference but not at a conference on family therapy. In sum, practitioner-academic relationships being complex, interdependent, and of unequal status, generate ongoing tension. These tensions may present challenges to developing productive, long lasting relationships at a time when such relationships have assumed increasing importance. …