I was delighted to attend the 33rd BledCom International Public Relations Symposium in Slovenia on 26 – 27 June. It was a real privilege to hear from a wide range of speakers on crisis communication, particularly keynote speakers Professors Timothy Coombs and Anne Gregory.
BledCom is primarily an academic conference, with most participants attending to present their latest research. There were, however, some exceptions—including myself. I attended as a practitioner, in my role as co-chair of the CIPR Crisis Communications Network, as well as an expert speaker on communications and board governance.
One clear takeaway from the conference was a growing recognition of the need to strengthen connections between crisis communication academics and industry practitioners.
Encouragingly, this is an area where the Network already excels. Whilst our membership is practitioner-led, the regular events we host with academic partners are consistently well attended, reflecting a shared appetite for closer collaboration.
Why Does the Gap Exist?
Crisis communication sits at the intersection of theory and real-world urgency. Whilst academics develop frameworks, models, and evidence-based insights, practitioners operate in fast-moving, high-pressure environments where decisions must be made in minutes, not months. Despite our shared goals, the two groups often work alongside rather than with each other. This divide largely stems from differing incentives and timelines: academics are rewarded for rigorous, peer-reviewed research focused on long-term patterns, while practitioners are judged by immediate outcomes such as stakeholder perceptions, shareholder value, media coverage and – ultimately – crisis resolution.
Language further widens the gap, as academic work may be perceived to be dense and theoretical, whilst practitioners prioritise clarity, speed, action and effectiveness. As a result, practitioners may view academic research as too abstract or disconnected from real conditions, while academics may see practitioner approaches as overly reactive or lacking theoretical grounding.
Ideas for Breaking Down Barriers
There may be many ways to break down barriers but a few suggestions immediately spring to mind:
- Make research more accessible
A significant amount of academic research resides behind paywalls, meaning that it is not available to practitioners without the payment of a fee. Naturally this deters access. Removing these paywalls would help practitioners to become aware of the body of academic work that is being undertaken.
- Make academic language more practitioner-friendly
Practitioners may sometimes view academic language as terse and, in some cases, impenetrable. The more academics can do to actively translate their findings into practitioner-friendly language will help to bridge understanding and relevance. Executive summaries, blog posts, webinars and short guides are all useful ways to convey key findings and concepts.
- Encourage two-way dialogue
Regular conversation promotes better dialogue and understanding. Conferences, industry panels and joint workshops can create the space for exchange, where practitioners share lived experiences and academics offer theoretical lenses. (The Network offers excellent opportunities for this).
- Align research with real problems
Some of the academics at Bledcom admitted that their research was sometimes inspired by practitioner insights: consequently, academics may benefit from (more) direct industry engagement. Partnering with organisations to study ongoing or recent crises will ensure that findings are grounded in lived experience.
- Create shared spaces and platforms
Communities of practice—both online and offline—can bring academics and practitioners together on a regular basis. LinkedIn groups, research-practice consortiums and collaborative publications all help to sustain ongoing interaction.
- Rethink incentives on both sides
Universities can place greater value on impact and industry collaboration, while organisations can prioritise evidence-based approaches and allocate time for engagement with research. Structural change of this kind would help to make collaboration the norm rather than the exception.
- Using resources already available
Practitioners can also draw on material that has been prepared already on the questions of crisis management by academics who have researched real-life cases to use for teaching purposes. This material is in the case collection curated by The Case Centre (www.thecasecentre.org). The Case Centre was set up to draw together all cases used in business school teaching. It is a collection of nearly 80,000 cases written by mainly business school academics, thoroughly researched and very accessible. A search on the topic of crisis management produces 1,578 cases, many of which will offer insights of immediate and general relevance to practice and planning for crisis management.
Building Stronger Bridges
Successful collaboration is built on trust and mutual respect.
Successful collaboration is built on trust and mutual respect. Practitioners possess invaluable tactical and practical knowledge around preparing for, managing and recovering from crisis in real world conditions. They are on the front line all the time. Academics contribute structured analysis, longitudinal insights and validated frameworks. When combined, these strengths can produce incredibly robust crisis communication strategies.
There should be no reason why joint projects shouldn’t be effective. Similarly, co-authored publications can blend theory and practice in ways that can resonate with both audiences.
Co-authored publications can blend theory and practice in ways that can resonate with both audiences.
Education also plays a crucial role. Inviting practitioners into the classroom—whether as guest lecturers or adjunct faculty—exposes students to real-world perspectives early on. Conversely, academics can offer training sessions or advisory roles within organisations, embedding research into practice.
The Value of Practitioner-Academics (or Academic-Practitioners)
Individuals with experience in both academia and practice can help bridge the gap between theory and real-world application by translating ideas across both contexts. They bring credibility by understanding the demands of each field, can turn complex theory into practical guidance (and vice versa), maintain connections across academic and professional networks and use their dual perspective to develop solutions that are both evidence-based and workable in practice.
So What Next?
Closing the gap between crisis communication academics and practitioners will require deliberate, intentional effort on both sides. Success will involve valuing collaboration, better communication and shared learning. But by fostering dialogue, aligning goals, and actively encouraging individuals to straddle both worlds, crisis communication can become more cohesive, effective and resilient as a discipline.
The world is increasingly volatile, unpredictable and interconnected – and because real crises do not distinguish between theory and practice, we should all make every effort to work together as much as we can.
Those are my thoughts – what are yours?
Author: Katherine Sykes, Co-Chair CIPR Crisis Communications Network
With thanks to Dr Jon White for his comments.
Image by author