nursingforsocialjustice

Have you ever found yourself at an academic type conference feeling worn-out by the academic-type jargon that academic-type people use, perhaps as a means of distancing themselves from non-academic types in the discipline? This is how I feel sometimes when I go to conferences. I apologize for being super-judgemental but sometimes I wonder how academic research gets closer to direct practice if we continue to keep up this facade that academics live in a different world with a different language than direct care clinicians? And why are we keeping up the facade…is it to uphold the tradition? Or to make a disciple seem more legitimate? More science-y? Ugh. Because someone all I see is chasing the dragon of getting pat on the head that we are up to par with our academic roommates in the healthcare dorm.

Here are some popular words that I hear at academic conferences. I sometimes suspect this, dare I say academic jargon (though I know these words have important meanings related to the development of knowledge and the philosophy of a discipline) because it makes them feel smart, rather than because they convey the specificity of the message they are trying to deliver or provoke thoughtful discussion:

1. Epistemology
2. Discourse
3. Ontology

Words, words, words. Smart, smart, smart. And then, in the same breath there is discussion about the bridging the divide between academia and practice….like there wasn’t just 30 minutes of talk with a clear subtext that the Unintended goal is to divide and alienate practitioners? I think we seriously have to start asking some important questions about how to change conferences so they appeal to more than academics and researchers, because I suspect we end up no father ahead if academia is secret shared amongst academics. So, how do we build a bridge to appeal to and embrace all nurses and all health care clinicians into this shift to make research meaningful, relevant and usable to direct care clinicians?

If we continue to go down this road of trying to legitimize the discipline and profession by trying to fit into what I believe is a historical moment of academia and scholarship that has passed, then how can we be innovative leaders? Maybe we have to acknowledge that continuing to go down this road results in more harm than good?

As an aside, I think the conference circuit would benefit from some deep reflection on ways to shake things up and make it interesting. I think academic journals could do with a freshen up as well, with some thought on the impact of electronic-based journals and websites in a historical moment when more clicks and number of citations seem to be the standard of greatness rather than meaningful exploration of the impact of ideas. This publish or perish thing…can it be transcended in a day and age of multimedia, social media, tweets and likes? These tools that we now have to share, to disseminate knowledge, to translate research into practice, do we need to connect more than just healthcare disciplines? How do we connect computer science, communications, and education?

And I will leave you with this: Does it seems weird that the entirety of a clinical trial (a randomized control trial) is conveyed in a snippet written by someone who’s interest is in getting people to read the article (or click on the article)? In a world where university staff are increasingly precariously employed in contract positions, and private industry is connected to research how do we adapt? How are we adapting? How does this influence public perception and perpetuate stereotypes and stigma?

Peace,

Michelle D.