**FEMA's Higher Education Conference 2004**

**Challenges of New Emergency Management Programs**

**"Academic/Practitioner Interface"**

*Arthur Oyola-Yemaiel, Ph.D.*

*Jennifer Wilson, Ph.D.*

*Emergency Management Program*

*North Dakota State University*

The academe-practitioner interface is a daunting challenge in emergency
management. It is a big obstacle to the development of the profession
and, thus, degree programs. Therefore, it should not be underestimated.
There seems to be a shared feeling that interface between academia and
practitioners already exists due to a few academics doing research that
crosses boundaries, to conferences/meetings that participate both (i.e.,
Natural Hazards Workshop), and to some personal interactions between the
two groups. Although this is occurring to some degree, there by no means
exists a systemic interface. Various aspects conspire to interfere with
this interface especially related to the development of emergency
management field as a profession.

First, as we argue elsewhere, the development of the emergency
management profession requires practitioners to obtain education through
the academy. However, at the present time this requirement is
encountering some **resistance** from practitioners. Many practitioners
believe that their skills acquired from the military, law enforcement,
fire service, resource management, or whatever other field of expertise
they are utilizing is sufficient to fulfill their obligations as
emergency managers. Other well-established emergency management
personnel are not eager to enter the academic world to enhance their
credentials and knowledge base for they believe that it would not be
advantageous in terms of their career track. In terms of professional
development, the academy and emergency management practitioners are a
world apart because at present practical experience is the fundamental
factor in hiring and promotion rather than knowledge and academic
credentials. For many practitioners the skills that they believe make
the best emergency managers can only be learned on the job, "by doing
it."

Second, academicians in general as well as those who are currently
interfacing to some degree with emergency management practitioners do
not have a clear understanding of what the field is all about nor do
they have the inclination to or time to step outside of their own
discipline to learn about the entire field. In other words, traditional
academics are discipline-oriented, which restricts them from engaging in
emergency management practice as a whole and outside of their field of
expertise. The culture of academia is miles away from the culture of the
applied field of emergency management. Academia works in terms of
disciplines and is very **compartmentalized**. Emergency management, on
the other hand, requires at lease an inter-disciplinary and
**integrated** approach in comparison.

Third, when practitioners attempt to acquire some academic credentials
in order to ratify their positions and expertise in the field or to
acquire higher management positions, they face the obstacle of having to
begin at the bottom. There is no **transferability**. We as Ph.D.'s want
to be EMAP Assessors and have to attend a three-day basic training
session for which we are extremely overqualified while our degrees do
not "count." Likewise, a director of a state or county emergency
management agency wants a masters or doctorate in emergency management,
whatever hours of training he/she has acquired over his/her career does
not count for course credit towards that degree. So we have a huge
bridge to build in this regard; it is a great challenge.

Fourth, the field of emergency management has the appearance of being ad
hoc in many ways. In other words, it swings with the **politics** of the
day, which affects the availability of funding as well as the
organizational focus and even organizational structure. Thus, these
quick changes in focus based on the political issue *de jour* reduce the
ability for long-term commitment and strategic planning. Since academics
do not normally vary their lines of research very much, it is difficult
for them to keep up.

Fifth, the academy for the most part (we may uncover this as we explore
the issue) is currently trying to establish emergency management degree
programs with very little dedicated **budget** funds, which places a
great strain on the administrators and faculty. This is reflected in
program development "on-the-go" as opposed to strategic development with
pre-planning that could build in a more solid relationship with the
practitioner world.

In conclusion, these are factors that we may want to seriously address
in this and future years at the Higher Ed conference.