We should understand that by writing up our ideas, experiences, and thoughts we are inviting dialogue and discussion.
by Stephen G. Donshik
Throughout our careers as Jewish communal professionals we are often privileged to participate in implementing exciting new projects. We even have the opportunity to develop creative programs that respond to issues in the Jewish community. Occasionally the initiatives we either create or participate in are the focus of local media attention and receive positive responses from community leaders in the Jewish community and the broader community.
Many times we have had an impact on a group of people in the community or have enabled others to achieve their goals through the programs we have designed and implemented. It is not unusual for our efforts to be recognized as innovative and as having a wider impact than we anticipated when we developed the program or service. The agency’s professional and volunteer leaders are often responsive to our efforts and generous with their acknowledgment of what we have been able to accomplish.
However, after we developed such innovative approaches, have we enabled other agencies in our community and in other communities to learn about them? Have we shared our concepts, our program development experience, and our results with others who might be interested in replicating what has been successful in our agency? More often than not, the unique conceptualizations and approaches to service delivery developed in our voluntary agencies go unnoticed by other agencies because program planners do not share the experience and knowledge gained with others.
I would like to make the case now for the field of Jewish communal service to develop the concept of the “scholarly practitioner.” We, as Jewish communal professionals, have both a responsibility and an obligation to develop our field by creating a body of knowledge to be used in an interdisciplinary way to advance all of our efforts to nurture Jewish identity, strengthen our communities, and ensure the continuity of our people. For too long a time we professionals have looked to social scientists and academics to be the leaders in the field of knowledge development, and we have sought to understand the practical implications of what they have studied, analyzed, conceptualized, and published in journals and other publications.
Yet, each of us has the potential to make valuable contributions to the body of knowledge of colleagues in our own communities and other communities. There are a number of vehicles to disseminate this knowledge that we currently under-utilize, but instead should be exploiting as a means to share experiences and knowledge that can be the foundation of our field. If we would only make the effort to write up our innovative programs in the areas of, to name a few, professional and volunteer leadership development, service delivery, community relations, Jewish education, and interdisciplinary activities, we could have an exponential impact on community services and community life.
These publication venues extend beyond the Anglo-Jewish press that exists in most communities. Professionals should write up their experiences as individuals or in small groups and so disseminate their ideas through the Journal of Jewish Communal Service, eJewishPhilanthropy.com, The Chronicle of Philanthropy, and a large number of websites focused on the Jewish community and on the nonprofit sector. An easier, though more ephemeral, way to spread knowledge is to make an oral presentation at a conference. But without being written down, the impact is lessened.
Many years ago when I was a young professional in the field, senior colleagues and mentors taught me that when you write something up, “it has feet.” When you commit your thoughts and ideas to the computer screen, what you write can be shared with many people by the click of a button. Writing something down also requires you to think through your thoughts and clarify your message; this extra step often gives your more insight into your experiences and also helps prevent misinterpretation of your ideas.
We should understand that by writing up our ideas, experiences, and thoughts we are inviting dialogue and discussion. We should not be afraid of being vulnerable to critics when we share our thinking and ideas. There is no question that some of our ideas we will be right on target and that others will incur criticism and disagreement. However, these differences of opinion will lead to dialogue and discussion that will enhance the further development of our various professional activities in the field of Jewish communal service.
Becoming a scholarly practitioner is well worth the investment, and it might even lead to the creation of local professional development forums that would provide a venue for the advancement of all the professionals in our local communities.
Stephen G. Donshik, D.S.W., is a lecturer at Hebrew University’s International Nonprofit Management and Leadership Program. Stephen was Director of the Israel office of the Council of Jewish Federations (CJF), 1986-94, and Director of the Israel office of UJA Federation of New York, 1994-2008.
Top
Kol Hakavod. I could not agree more. We are all cheating ourselves and the field by not being more disciplined about writing and publishing. How do we get this moving?
I too applaud the suggestion Steve. However we should be honest about the roadblocks in moving forward:
* The Divide in language, style and goals between practitioners and academics – we need a vocabulary and discipline unique to what and how we do things. (I’d put in a real pitch for ordinary language – I”ve stopped taking seriously articles that uses words like endogomy and exogomy in their titles or opening paragraph – as if a social reality is some contagious disease.)
*The overlong gestation period for aticles in the more scholarly journals and the 48-72 hour shelf life of articles printed electronically. One breeds irrelevancy before publication even occurs, the other dissapears before discussion and debate can ripen.
*The privatization of some of the most thought provoking writings, commissioned as they are as in-house evaluations subject to proprietary undestandings and confidentiality agreements. There is a real difference between an honest reflection on an initiative and “show and tell”.
*The cultural tendency of not responding in public to articles posted. We all have our theories as to why this is so, and all have some truth in them.
*The length of the articles we write. Dan Brown has reminded me that 1000 words is about right to make an electronic point and the sociologist C. Wright Mills observed that most books can be articles and most articles can be summed up as something much shorter. We need to be clear and conscise in what we want to say if we are to be heard and responded to.
All that said, I think proceeding with Steve’s suggestion is worth the effort. I can only think of the robust sustained discussions I wish had taken place among practitioners during my professional lifetime that could have made a real difference, examples of which are:
1995 Will Birthright damage the Teen Jewish Experience?
1988 What will day schools really accomplish and who will they serve?
1990 To kill or save congregational education?
2001 The Jewish component in Human Service delivery (yes! it exists)
2000 Can Federations and the new mega-donor coexist?
2005 The ROI of what we spend on hasbara – between ouputs and outcomes
Bob,
I believe “the 48-72 hour shelf life of articles printed electronically” is a bit simplistic. Yes, the first 48-72 hours is what will create any “big boom”, but the “sharing” aspect the Internet permits allows a much longer shelf life. As an example, I have found with eJP that certain articles are printed off months (and even years) later – one presumes for offline discussion. Additionally, many times an article is the catalyst for a full article response from elsewhere thus also extending the original and more visible shelf life.
The larger challenge in having discussions ripen is [as you mention] the refusal of so many communal professionals, especially – but not limited to – those working in the federation world, expressing ANY view in ANY written forum they do not control. And for their employees to “speak” …. well, that’s all to often only at the risk of their own livelihood.
As publishers of the Journal of Jewish Communal Service, JCSA-The JPRO Network-completely agrees with this conversation. We know that articles printed in the Journal are often used in classroom settings, become archived in the Berman Jewish Policy Archives and, most importantly, contribute to building knowledge and expertise for our field and advance the vitality of Jewish communities. We have been encouraged to see the number of younger career professionals contributing to the Journal in recent years.
It is true that the time between submission of an article and its publication is lengthy to allow for review and editing–this assures quality and objectivity. We can do better in shortening the review time. We are also working to develop a mobile app that will allow us more ways to communicate with our readership.
At one time it was almost certain that any CEO in the field –or aspiring CEO– had a set of Journals in his/her office. While those days may be long gone, the need for a body of knowledge to educate and inspire our field should never go out of style.
In addition to Brenda’s notes above about the Journal, I also want to refer you to the Berman Jewish Policy Archive (bjpa.org) as a resource – they have a lot of information indexed and easily searchable – and downloadable – from decades past, and have started adding more contemporary pieces as well. Worth a look if you haven’t been there already.