Introduction

In recent decades, a growing divide has emerged between theoretical and practical professionals. This separation pervades education, politics, and society, creating tensions that are increasingly difficult to bridge. While some excel in abstract thinking and policymaking, others shine in practical implementation and tangible change. This duality has profound implications for how we collaborate and make progress as a society.

This article examines three perspectives on this divide. Mark Bovens highlights a “diploma democracy,” a new kind of societal stratification between higher- and lower-educated groups, visible not only in educational levels but also in lifestyles, social circles, and political preferences. Additionally, a recent Twitter discussion sheds light on a less visible but equally important division within the higher-educated: between theorists who design rules and policies and practical doers, such as engineers and entrepreneurs, who implement change. Finally, a third perspective, focusing on the idea that researchers are rarely the drivers of change, shows that scientists often excel at gathering knowledge but struggle to translate it into real-world impact.

These dynamics are not merely theoretical but strike at the core of how we define and shape societal progress. When connections between these groups are lacking, potential is wasted, and problems are exacerbated rather than solved. How can we bridge these divides to create a society where theory and practice complement rather than conflict? This question lies at the heart of this article, inviting reflection and dialogue.

The New Stratification: Academic vs. Practical

Mark Bovens introduces a sharp analysis of the growing division in Dutch society between academically and practically educated individuals in his work on “diploma democracy.” He argues that this divide extends to nearly every aspect of life, from where people live and work to the political parties they support and the social circles they inhabit. This new stratification reflects not just differences in education but also disparities in culture, values, and access to opportunities.

Bovens points out that higher-educated individuals tend to dominate on nearly all fronts. They live in better neighborhoods, earn higher incomes, enjoy better health, and have longer lives. Beyond personal advantages, they also hold sway over the political and social institutions that shape the country’s future. Practically educated individuals, in contrast, often feel excluded and unheard, leading to a sense of resentment and injustice that puts additional strain on the social fabric. Bovens warns that this dynamic creates fertile ground for polarization and distrust of institutions.

In my own work, I see this divide play out in the projects and discussions I engage in. As an engineer and researcher, I often operate at the intersection of theory and practice. I witness how theoretical models and policy proposals, often developed by academically trained experts, fail to align with the realities faced by practical professionals. For instance, farmers are expected to comply with complex nitrogen regulations, yet the practical feasibility of these rules is rarely considered. This tension underscores the importance of connecting these worlds. Only by actively listening to one another and collaborating can we bridge the divide and do justice to each perspective and area of expertise.

The Internal Divide: Theoretical vs. Practical Within the Educated Elite

Beyond the broader stratification between academic and practical education, there is a subtler yet significant division within the higher-educated population itself: between theorists and practical doers. A recent Twitter discussion captures this split vividly. While theorists—such as lawyers, economists, and managers—develop the rules and frameworks that shape policy and society, practical doers, including engineers and entrepreneurs, must apply these rules and create workable solutions.

This dynamic often leads to frustration. Theoretical elites design policies that fit neatly within abstract models and regulations but prove challenging to implement in practice. This creates a sense of “regulatory burden” for those operating on the ground. In the agricultural sector, for example, farmers face intricate nitrogen regulations designed without sufficient regard for the realities of rural life. The result is a widening gap between policymakers and implementers and growing distrust in institutions.

An intriguing insight from the discussion is the contrast between what is termed a “practical society of atoms and molecules” and a “theoretical society of bits and bytes.” Practical doers focus on tangible, physical challenges such as infrastructure, food production, and energy supply. They work with materials, machines, and processes to achieve concrete results. Theorists, on the other hand, often deal with abstractions—data, rules, concepts, and models. While both perspectives are valuable, friction arises when theoretical frameworks dictate policies that fail to align with physical realities.

This internal divide raises critical questions. How can theorists and practical doers collaborate more effectively to ensure that policies are both logical and actionable? How can theoretical elites better incorporate the knowledge and experiences of practical professionals? What role can interdisciplinary teams play in bridging this gap? Addressing these questions is essential to building a society where abstract rules enhance rather than hinder practical realities.

Researchers as Facilitators, Not Change-Makers

Researchers play a crucial role in gathering knowledge, conducting analyses, and providing a scientific foundation for technological and societal progress. Yet they are rarely the drivers of change. This limitation is not due to a lack of expertise but rather their role and skill set. Researchers excel at systematically understanding complex issues, but translating this knowledge into innovation or policy change requires a different skill set—one often possessed by engineers, entrepreneurs, policymakers, and visionaries.

The Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI) offers an insightful way to understand this dynamic. The model divides thinking styles into four categories: rational (blue), procedural (green), creative (yellow), and relational (red). Researchers typically operate in the blue and green quadrants, excelling in logic, analysis, and process adherence. However, they often lack the visionary flair of yellow thinkers or the connective power of red thinkers. Effective change requires these diverse thinking styles to complement each other, bridging the gap between abstraction and execution.

In my own work on nitrogen policy and the Aerius model, I’ve seen the importance—and challenges—of such collaboration. Researchers provided valuable insights into atmospheric processes, but their analyses were deeply rooted in theoretical models. Engineers and farmers, who dealt with the policy’s practical implications daily, encountered implementation challenges that the models had not accounted for. When policymakers made decisions based on these models, tensions arose because the practical feasibility had not been fully considered.

This situation highlighted the necessity of collaboration but also its complexity. Researchers needed to listen to farmers’ practical experiences, while policymakers and engineers needed to understand the intricacies of scientific models. The value of interdisciplinary collaboration became evident, as did its challenges: it requires time, mutual respect, and a willingness to move beyond one’s own expertise.

The Path Forward: From Division to Collaboration

To bridge the divide between different groups and thinking styles, we need fundamental changes in how we collaborate, shape education, and make policies. The path forward lies in connecting theoretical and practical worlds and creating structures that prioritize collaboration.

Universities must become more accessible to practical thinkers and actively encourage interdisciplinary collaboration. Programs that combine theory and practice can prepare future professionals to value diverse perspectives and build the skills needed to bridge divides. Policymaking must strike a better balance between theory and practice. Participatory processes, where farmers, engineers, entrepreneurs, and other practical professionals contribute to policy design and evaluation, can make regulations more realistic and actionable.

Conclusion: Toward a Unified Society

The challenges described in this article show that the divide between theory and practice, between educational levels and thinking styles, is not just an abstract issue but a fundamental barrier to societal progress. Breaking these silos is no longer optional; it is essential. Collaboration and mutual understanding are the only ways forward. Together, we can build a society where theory and practice reinforce each other rather than conflict. What role will you play in bridging this divide?