Bridging the Gap

Almost exactly eight years ago I spent a delightful holiday with my family on the beautiful island of Barbados in the Caribbean. The night before we went home I was up late having a few farewell drinks with one of the hotel bartenders. That night someone sat next to me at the bar. He told me he could use a few drinks because he had accidentally erased the final draft of his keynote speech. The unfortunate man was an American palaeontologist and he was attending a conference held at the hotel that week. Murphy’s law was in full effect that night because for the first time in five months it started to rain cats and dogs. With nowhere else to go we started to talk about his profession and the ups of downs of being a palaeontologist.

I don’t know if it was because we had nowhere else to go or that the alcohol started to settle in, but after a few hours he said something that recently crossed my mind again. He told me that, for the very first time, he had the feeling that someone outside his academic circle understood a word he was saying. He told me that he had consequently failed in making his friends enthusiastic about his research and that he always felt a certain divide between him and his non-academic friends. “Perhaps the most difficult task for an academician”, he told me, “is disseminating the knowledge you generate.” With almost a year and a half of academic experience I now know that he told me no lies that night.

The feeling dr. Ross Geller was talking about that night is something that must be familiar to every academician. It is the feeling you get when someone starts giving you that sheepish gaze the moment you start talking about your research. It is that gaze through which the utterly profound regret for asking the obligatory question “what is it you study exactly” can be sensed. It is something dr. Geller felt time and time again when he started talking to his friends about his findings regarding palaeontology. That night, thankfully, I saw some fulfilment in dr. Geller’s eyes when he left the hotel bar and I would like to believe that our talk boosted his morale and motivated him in rewriting his speech. I can only guess what that must have felt like: being able to translate your research in such a way that you can spot a glance of comprehension in the eyes of a layman.

The students of the New Media and Digital Culture class of February 2011, including myself, will be interns soon. It will be a time when knowledge has to be translated into practice, when the gap, dr. Geller and I talked about, will have to be bridged. Given the fact that my previous attempts translating my newfound knowledge to the world outside of academia have failed miserably I am somewhat curious what the upcoming months will be like. It is my opinion that, in the future, it would be wise if this gap was mentioned more often during the master programme and if students were more frequently triggered to contextualise the texts they read and think about the (social) importance of the research they conduct. I think there are several arguments for more emphasis on the gap.

First, I believe a large part of NMDC students will not stay within academia when they graduate. If I am not mistaken the master programme in Utrecht has seen a large growth in the number of students over the last couple of years. This increase is partly due to the increased popularity of bachelor (HBO) degrees in multimedia, communication, interaction design and technology to which this master programme offers a good theoretical supplement. These more hands-on educations enable current NMDC students to find jobs within a practitioner orientated work field whenever they fail to find something on a more scientific level.

Second, even if graduates would like to stay within academia the government will force them to look elsewhere. The Dutch government is seriously considering large-scale budget cuts, which will affect future research within the humanities. The ‘value for money’ and ‘the public benefit’ of this kind of research is always questioned. Therefore, even if graduates want to stay within university walls they are more or less pushed out by the government.

Last but not least, I am convinced that bridging the gap forces academicians to be understandable, relevant and open to work floor knowledge and insights. Moreover, it prevents the work of an academician to be dismissed as “ivory tower” knowledge. Although this line of thought applies to every type of academician I think that this is even more applicable to (new) media scholars. If anything, new media and popular culture are firmly embedded in a world full of practitioners (prosumers, remixers, designers etc.). Having one foot in both worlds enables researchers to keep up with the latest developments and technological innovations, which rapidly follow up on each other.

I find the attitude towards the gap among lecturers within the master programme rather ambivalent. Some prefer the typical publish or perish approach and do not really feel for a forced meeting of academicians and practitioners. Other lecturers almost automatically translate the course’s content to the work field by inviting guest lecturers from outside academia or because they themselves work outside of academic walls. I must admit, however, that you cannot expect lecturers to constantly contextualize their assignments and course readers. It is something you have to force yourself to do. Translate your knowledge into crystal-clear, understandable terms. I am sure that bridging the gap will not only help others to understand you, but to help you understand yourself as well. You do not want to end up at a bar in Barbados wondering if anyone will ever understand a word you are saying, right?

My question to you who is reading this is if the infamous gap is something to be wary of or do you think I am simply talking gibberish? Does the gap even exist really? If it does, where do you think the responsibility lies? Do you think the master programme should stimulate students to translate and contextualise their knowledge or do you think it is your own responsibility? On behalf of dr. Ross Geller I would like to say that it would be very interesting to read your opinions.

Also, here is a book on the public value of the humanities that might be interesting to read this summer.