Working in the gap area between management theory and practice I’ve noticed how the word “academic” tends to surface in conversation. Rarely as praise. More often as a way of stepping around an idea rather than into it.
I completely understand the instinct. Corporate communication and public relations practice is pressured and outcome-driven. We’re rewarded for speed and clarity, not for sitting with difficult ideas or unfamiliar language.
And yet, something is lost when we dismiss academic work so quickly.
The academic process exists for a reason. It is the most rigorous system we have for building knowledge that can be tested, challenged and improved over time. It demands engagement with what is already known, transparent methods and scrutiny of conclusions. It isn’t perfect, but it is deliberately demanding.
When we use “academic” as shorthand for “irrelevant”, we lower the standard of evidence we expect from ourselves.
A quiet divide
Public relations practice and scholarship operate largely in parallel worlds. Practitioners and academics read different material, attend different events and are rewarded for different things.
That separation has consequences. When practice drifts away from evidence, habit fills the gap. Decisions start to rely on familiarity rather than judgement, often without us noticing.
If critical thinking is a practitioner’s superpower, then understanding where knowledge comes from is the foundation beneath it.
How we really learn
Most practitioners don’t regularly turn to peer-reviewed research. Much of what we do is shaped by experience, repetition and inherited process.
Alongside this sits grey literature. These are reports and studies from consultancies, platforms, vendors and trade bodies. Some of it is excellent. Some of it is deeply flawed.
Small samples are presented as universal truth. Conclusions stretch beyond the data. Research is designed to support a commercial narrative rather than test an argument.
Navigating this requires scepticism. Who funded the work and what’s their motivation? How was the research conducted? Do the conclusions follow from the evidence? Indeed, these are not academic questions. They are professional ones.
Learning and AI
AI has added another layer of distance from knowledge.
Summaries can be useful, but they are not learning. Understanding comes from reading, struggling and trying to articulate ideas in your own words. That friction is where insight forms.
Used well, AI can challenge and sharpen thinking. Used poorly, it replaces it.
You cannot critically assess what you haven’t read. You cannot advise with confidence on ideas you’ve only encountered through abstraction.
Choosing differently
The divide between research and practice isn’t inevitable. It’s a set of habits that we can change.
Start small:
Read one peer-reviewed paper in your area of practice
Treat grey literature with informed scepticism
Use AI as a thinking partner and not a shortcut
Academic is not a dirty word. It is an invitation to think more carefully and critically.
I hope you’re having a good week.
Communications management and leadership (full-day, online course)
The communications and public relations function is being pulled upstream into management work at exactly the moment when organisations are becoming harder to govern, harder to predict and harder to legitimise.
The familiar reference points of practice (channels, campaigns, media relations, even stakeholder engagement as it has traditionally been understood) are no longer sufficient to explain what high-performing functions are doing, or why others are struggling.
I’m hosting a series of one-day online courses on communication management and leadership for a maximum of eight senior communicators. February is sold out but we’ve added dates in March, April and May. Please follow this link for further details.
The Wadds Inc. newsletter is read by more than 5,000 communications and public relations practitioners twice a week. We distil news, research and industry developments twice a week into actionable briefings to help you at work.
The newsletter takes four to five hours each week to produce. It is free to read (knowledge should travel freely), but I’d be grateful if you’d consider upgrading to a paid subscription to support my PhD research and writing.
I think 'academic' is perceived as 'too distant' because it requires training to read and operate the academic process. The advice to "Read one peer-reviewed paper in your area" is a good one but it needs to be practised regularly.