The Challenge of Thinking Differently

As many of you, who know me, I have worked as an instructor in Academia since 2005. Academia is often portrayed as a place where diverse ideas flourish, critical thinking is celebrated, and intellectual debate is encouraged. In theory, universities should be the ideal environment for people who challenge assumptions and question accepted practices.

In reality, the experience can be a bit more complicated.

As someone who has spent decades working outside the walls of the university—as a coach, practitioner, consultant, and clinician—I have often found myself occupying a space between academic knowledge and real-world experience. While these worlds should complement one another, they do not always align.

When Experience Challenges Theory

One of the greatest strengths of academia is its commitment to evidence. Research helps us move beyond anecdotes and personal opinions. It allows us to systematically evaluate ideas and improve practice. I love this about scientific enquiry!

However, evidence is not the same as truth. And it can be detrimentally contextual.

Research is often conducted under controlled conditions, with carefully selected populations, limited timeframes, and narrow questions. Practitioners, on the other hand, work with messy reality. They deal with complex human beings, imperfect environments, competing priorities, and problems that rarely fit neatly into a research design. Often, researchers, are not practitioners.

Over nearly three decades of coaching and clinical work, I have seen situations where what works in practice does not always align perfectly with what students are taught in textbooks. This does not mean the research is wrong. Nor does it mean experience should replace science. It means reality is more nuanced than either side often wants to admit.

The most valuable professionals are often those who can navigate the tension between research and practice rather than blindly committing to one camp.

The Challenge of Group Think

Universities pride themselves on critical thinking, yet like any organization, they are susceptible to group think.

Certain ideas become fashionable. Certain perspectives become dominant. Certain viewpoints become difficult to challenge—not because they are necessarily correct, but because they are widely accepted.

The pressure to conform can be subtle.

It may appear as social approval for saying the "right" thing. It may emerge through committee discussions where disagreement is viewed as disruption. Sometimes it appears in the expectation that everyone should enthusiastically support the same initiatives, philosophies, or narratives.

For individuals who naturally ask difficult questions, this can create friction.

Questioning an idea is often interpreted as opposing the people who support it. Raising concerns can be mistaken for negativity. Healthy skepticism can be viewed as resistance.

Yet progress depends on people who are willing to ask uncomfortable questions.

Many of the most important advances in science, medicine, coaching, and education emerged because someone challenged prevailing wisdom.

The Burden of Direct Communication

Another challenge is communication style.

I have never been particularly skilled at saying what I think in three meetings when it can be said in three minutes. It’s my flaw for sure.

Direct communicators often face a unique dilemma in academic environments. While universities value honesty and transparency in principle, there is often an unwritten preference for diplomacy, consensus-building, and carefully managed disagreement.

Directness can be interpreted as aggression.

Candor can be interpreted as criticism.

Clarity can be interpreted as conflict.

Yet many practitioners develop direct communication styles because they work in environments where consequences are immediate.

Athletes get injured.

Patients suffer.

Programs fail.

Deadlines matter.

In these settings, ambiguity is often more harmful than honesty.

The challenge becomes learning how to remain authentic while communicating in ways that allow others to hear the message rather than react to the delivery. I carry this burden.

Celebrating Success Without Needing Celebration

One of the more curious aspects of modern professional culture is the increasing expectation that accomplishments must be publicly celebrated.

Awards.

Announcements.

Recognition.

There is nothing inherently wrong with celebrating success. Recognition can be motivating and meaningful.

However, not everyone is driven by public validation.

Some people derive satisfaction from solving problems, helping others, and doing good work. The reward is the work itself.

For those individuals, the constant emphasis on visibility and recognition can feel uncomfortable.

They may be perceived as disengaged when they are simply focused.

They may appear unsupportive when they are simply uninterested in performative celebration.

The reality is that not everyone measures success the same way.

Living Between Two Worlds

Perhaps the greatest challenge for me personally is existing between academia and practice.

Practitioners sometimes view academics as disconnected from reality.

Academics sometimes view practitioners as overly reliant on anecdote.

Those who work in both worlds are often trusted by neither side completely.

Yet this position also provides a unique perspective.

You see the limitations of research.

You see the limitations of experience.

You see the gap between what is taught and what is done.

Most importantly, you see opportunities to build bridges.

Why Different Voices Matter

Universities do not need more agreement.

In my opinion, they need more thoughtful disagreement.

They need individuals willing to ask difficult questions, challenge assumptions, and test ideas against reality.

They need people who can respectfully say:

"Have we considered another possibility?"

"What evidence supports this?"

"Does this actually work in practice?"

Progress does not come from everyone thinking alike.

It comes from the tension between competing ideas.

The goal should never be conformity.

The goal should be better thinking.

As educators, researchers, and practitioners, we serve our students best when we create environments where disagreement is not feared but welcomed, where evidence and experience inform one another, and where intellectual diversity is valued as much as demographic diversity.

Because sometimes the person pushing against the herd is not trying to create conflict.

Sometimes they are simply trying to make the herd think.