I recently spoke with a colleague about their perspective on academia. In their view, Ph.D.s should be reserved for those who think critically, generate new ideas, and produce original scholarship. Those without doctorates, they argued, should primarily teach—especially at the undergraduate level—while graduate and doctoral students should be taught exclusively by Ph.D.-holding faculty.
What wasn’t clear was who, then, would teach undergraduates why doctoral work matters in the first place. As a practitioner who thinks, creates, and teaches, I found myself questioning the logic of that distinction.
About a month later, I attended a marketing conference where I noticed a similar disconnect. Many presentations centered on the consumer as the end user, yet few considered the practitioners who shape, interpret, and deliver messages before they ever reach consumers. The social media manager, in particular, was largely absent from the conversation.
I have worked professionally as a social media manager for more than 15 years—nearly as long as social media has existed as a field. Throughout my career, I have relied on both academic and industry research to inform my practice. Realizing that the work of social media managers is not consistently considered within academic research was disheartening. It revealed a gap between scholarship and practice—one that overlooks the professionals who translate theory into action every day.
If practitioners are expected to do what Ph.D.s cannot—translate theory into practice, navigate real-world constraints, and make decisions in rapidly changing environments—what happens when the Ph.D. doesn’t engage with practice at all? Conversely, what happens when practitioners are excluded from the production of knowledge because they lack a particular credential?
The divide assumes that thinking and doing are separate pursuits, when in reality they are deeply intertwined. Practice generates questions that theory has yet to ask, and research provides frameworks that help practitioners make sense of their experiences. One without the other produces an incomplete understanding of the field.
Perhaps the more important question is not who is qualified to create knowledge, but whose knowledge is considered worthy of study. When scholarship overlooks practitioners, it risks becoming detached from the very environments it seeks to explain. And when practitioners are viewed only as consumers of research rather than contributors to it, academia loses access to insights that emerge only through sustained engagement with practice.
So, what’s next? I encourage every digital media researcher to connect with a social media manager. Have a conversation. Share insights. Build a reciprocal relationship where research informs practice, and practice, in turn, informs research.
Social media managers are not merely implementing strategy—they are observing platforms evolve in real time, adapting to algorithmic shifts, navigating ethical dilemmas, and experimenting with communication in ways that generate valuable knowledge. Their experiences can help researchers ask better questions, challenge assumptions, and identify problems that may not be visible from the outside.
Likewise, practitioners benefit from engaging with scholarship that provides theoretical frameworks, historical context, and empirical evidence to support more informed decision-making. Neither perspective is complete on its own.
If digital media research seeks to understand how communication works in contemporary society, then the people responsible for creating, managing, and evaluating that communication deserve a place in the conversation—not simply as subjects of study, but as partners in producing knowledge.