Worlds in collision, worlds in collusion

Both the government national security policy community and the academic community are concerned with problems of political terrorism. A major gap exists, however, between these two communities in terms of cooperation and information flow. This gap reflects differences in primary mission, role definition, professional training, and career considerations. The government practitioner's requirement for dealing with crises and producing immediate results leads to a truncated time frame which insufficiently considers long‐term causes and consequences. Moreover, he tends to place overly great reliance on classified information, insufficiently attending to understandings which may derive from open sources. This is a function of role, not training, for the academic who moves from the university to the government quickly adopts the government practitioner's orientation. The academic, on the other hand, may be inhibited by career considerations from cooperating with the government, for in some institutions this would reflect negatively on tenure considerations. Moreover, he may not convey his knowledge in a manner which is responsive to the time frame and practical requirements of the government. Each of the two communities can benefit from knowledge and perspective of the other, and from an enhanced understanding of the mutual institutional constraints. Internships, government‐academic exchanges, joint workshops and seminars can assist in briding the gap. Moreover, academics can make important indirect contributions by re‐framing problematic questions through public commentary in print and electronic media

Business · Collusion · Political science · Politics · Public policy · Public relations · Sociology · Terrorism · Law · Military History and Strategy · Policing Practices and Perceptions · Public Administration · Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence