Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA.
Disasters. 2013 Jul;37 Suppl 1:S51-67. doi: 10.1111/disa.12012.
This paper presents the reflections of the authors on the differences between the language and the approach of practitioners and academics to humanitarian logistics problems. Based on a long-term project on fleet management in the humanitarian sector, involving both large international humanitarian organisations and academics, it discusses how differences in language and approach to such problems may create a lacuna that impedes trust. In addition, the paper provides insights into how academic research evidence adapted to practitioner language can be used to bridge the gap. When it is communicated appropriately, evidence strengthens trust between practitioners and academics, which is critical for long-term projects. Once practitioners understand the main trade-offs included in academic research, they can supply valuable feedback to motivate new academic research. Novel research problems promote innovation in the use of traditional academic methods, which should result in a win-win situation: relevant solutions for practice and advances in academic knowledge.
本文呈现了作者对从业者和学者在人道主义物流问题的语言和方法上的差异的思考。基于一个涉及大型国际人道主义组织和学者的人道主义部门车队管理的长期项目,本文讨论了语言和处理此类问题的方法上的差异如何可能造成阻碍信任的差距。此外,本文还探讨了如何使用适应从业者语言的学术研究证据来弥合差距。当证据以适当的方式进行沟通时,它可以加强从业者和学者之间的信任,这对于长期项目至关重要。一旦从业者理解了学术研究中包含的主要权衡,他们就可以提供有价值的反馈来激励新的学术研究。新的研究问题促进了传统学术方法的创新使用,这应该会形成双赢局面:为实践提供相关解决方案和推进学术知识发展。