The practitioner-academic

What is it about former UK Prime Ministers and New England universities? First it was Tony Blair teaching at Yale, now it turns out that Gordon Brown will be a visiting fellow at Harvard.

Perhaps it is a universal truth that ex-leaders – often unpopular at home by the time they leave office - are faced with more appreciative, open-minded audiences when speaking abroad, particularly in countries with as close historical ties as the US has to the UK. It might also appeal to their sense of history: some memorable speeches have been delivered by ex Prime Ministers at American Universities, the most obvious being Churchill’s Iron Curtain speech in 1946 at Fulton, Missouri.

Whatever your view of Blair and Brown, they undoubtedly have skills and experiences that will be of interest to students of government, politics and leadership, which brings me to a wider point. It seems to be a feature of Harvard that the experienced practitioner – whether they be a politician, a judge or a lawyer – is highly valued by the academic establishment, perhaps, more than they would be in the UK.

To give an example, the Kennedy School describes itself as “a place where ideas meet practice” – a principle embodied in the fact that its faculty hosts leading practitioners from around the world. I have also come across this in my own research. Later this afternoon I’ll be attending a fascinating sounding class (on the prosecution of organised criminal networks) taught by Philip Heymann, who, before becoming a professor of law at the Harvard Law School, held a number of top government posts, including Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton administration.

Perhaps what I'm saying is obvious. Close partnerships between practitioners and universities help to ensure academic research and teaching is informed by hands on experience, which benefits the students. There can also be benefits in the other direction: for example, a closer relationship between government and academia can improve the policy making process, putting ideas to the test and helping governments to prioritise scarce funding towards policies where the evidence base is strong.

But I would speculate that while the UK university system continues to produce excellent research, its interconnectedness with practitioners is weak and classes like Professor Heymann’s (see above) would be rarer than they are here. (The one exception to this may be medicine where the concept of the “practitioner-academic” is well established in the UK). Johanthan Shephard, at Cardiff University, has argued along similar lines in relation to criminal justice and education policy research.

In any case, I’d be interested in others’ thoughts.