There is so much criticism of the academic enterprise these days, asserting that professors are too focused on research and not enough on teaching and not enough on relevance to the policy world. These critiques are hardly new, but bear more weight in a time of austerity. It is easy to point to some work that seems hardly relevant and some professors who seem least interested in engaging the “real world,” but I am constantly reminded of the opposite—professors who become deeply engaged in policy-making one way or another.
Tuesday night, I had the honor of being invited to the Canadian Governor-General’s residence, Rideau Hall, to celebrate the awarding of the Killam Prizes. Once I learned who was receiving one of the awards, my invitation started to make sense: John McGarry of Queen’s University. I have known John for some time and his work longer still, as it has had a powerful influence on how people think about power-sharing. How does one design democracy to foster peace even in divided societies, such as Northern Ireland? Not only has John’s work influenced how people think, but he has spent considerable time the past few years serving as a United Nations advisor to the negotiations in Cyprus.
John McGarry is hardly unique. My first International Relations course in grad school was with John Ruggie. His work at the time seemed hardly policy relevant, but this John also moved on to work with the UN, as Assistant Secretary General for Policy Planning and now as Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Business and Human Rights.
Many scholars have been able to participate in the United States foreign policy apparatus via the Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellowships. Dan Drezner served in the Treasury Department; Peter Feaver, Stuart Kaufman and Jessica Stern served on the National Security Council; Duck-ster Dan Nexon and Colin Kahl served in the Office of the Secretary of Defense; Jean Garrison and Gale Mattox served in the State Department; and I served in the Joint Staff as Condoleezza Rice did years before me, to name just a few.
There are other pathways to the world of policy. For instance, the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff has often been home to political scientists, including Bruce Jentleson, Stephen Krasner and Anne-Marie Slaughter. In just my first year in Ottawa, I have seen a number of scholars come through town to present their work to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, to the Department of National Defence, and to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. In my year in Washington, DC a decade ago, I saw plenty of academics engage with policy makers at events held by the US Institute of Peace, the Brookings Institution, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Wilson Institute and many others.
The point here is that despite much ritual gnashing of teeth about the flawed connections between the academic world and the policy world and about the need to bridge the gap, the reality is that there has been significant crossover. Not everyone participates but not everyone has to do so. The professor profession is a very large tent including people ranging quite widely in skill, inclination and interest in the policy world. Not every professor has to work in the policy community although more of us do need to communicate our work beyond the classroom and beyond the gated community (academic journals).
We need to continue to engage the policy community, we need to do a better job of demonstrating to politicians that our work is relevant, and we need to inform the public as well. The joy of the 21st century is that we now have multiple outlets to reach out, including blogs and twitter. The challenge will be for the consumers to figure out to sift the signals from the noise.
Stephen,
A small quibble but Ruggie’s tenure as UNSR on business and human rights ended in 2011. Interestingly, the Canadian government has been keenly interested in his work on developing the ‘guiding principles’ and supported development financially. Several GoC personnel also contributed to the process.
I liked your post but I find that many of the ‘bridging-the-gap’ discussions these days put quite a large onus on academia for making the connection. But on more than one occasion I’ve seen policy makers (bureaucracy) be dismissive or even downright antagonistic to academia, although the latter are few and far between. Everybody asks what academia are doing to be more policy relevant, but how often do we ask what are civil servants doing to listen better to academia? Doesn’t the logic of austerity demand we ask both?
Also, I’ve been hearing about the ‘gap’ for as long as I have studied IR. Yet as I map out my dissertation and plan for a career afterwards I am often told to stay away from public policy positions if I want to advance my academic career. Stints in policy making positions are seen as red flags by hiring committees, committees which coincidentally are made of people who are concerned with the ‘gap’. From the perspective of someone on their way in, if academia is really serious about closing the ‘gap’ they would change their professional incentives.
Looking only at the Ottawa context – the bureaucracy is limited in its resources with which it can engage with academia. Unless something is shorter than the length of a briefing note, few have the time to devote to it. Only the dedicated policy development shops seem to have the luxury, but they are just one part of the process – policy analysts and desk officers have fewer and fewer resources to devote to that process. Add to the mix that academia’s advice and counsel may run contrary to instructions from the Minister(s) or the Central Agencies and one can see why they may appear to be dismissive or antagonistic.
I can only speak from my experience but that one year in the Pentagon led to at least one job and probably two. The other competitor for the McGill position I formerly had was also an IAF holder with experience on the NSC. Now I am at a policy school. In between, I interviewed at several schools that looked at my policy experience as a plus. Moreover, my current research is a direct product of that one year. And that project has been incredibly cool in a variety of ways (the interviews, the travel for the interviews, the information, the speaking opportunities, the spinoffs, etc). So, I think the idea that touching the policy process is bad for one’s career is a canard It may be the case that writing only policy stuff might not be great for tenure but policy experience? So far, so good.
Thanks Steve for this thoughtful post (as always). I have nothing but respect for colleagues who try to influence policy with their work. But I think we also need to consider what is at stake by accepting this line of criticism from (mostly) US government actors.
The manner in which the argument is often framed by critics of academia is extremely short-sighted. Many significant advances in science and technology came about only after years of research to advance general knowledge in the field. The atomic weapons program is a classic example of this. One does not get to Fat Man and Little Boy without lots of theoretical physics for decades prior. Of course, Dessler’s post-mortem of the COW program in ISQ way back in ’91 is perhaps a warning regarding spending lots of money on a research program with minimal utility. But here I would defend COW-related work (which I personally find utterly boring) by arguing that it diffuses a general set of skills and knowledge that have all sorts of unanticipated benefits with regard to other lines of inquiry. Even the navel-gazing debates IR always seems to engage in have their uses (yes, I am one of the few people who thinks the agent-structure debate was worth it).
Call me old-fashioned, but I think it is worth arguing that even in a period of austerity, research for the sake of the advancement of knowledge is worth it. Period. That is the purpose of universities, not as the instrumentalist, economic-engine-of-growth institutions that contemporary public policy debates often cast them as. And to the obvious retort of “but we can’t come up with objective criteria to establish which research to advance knowledge is worth it,” I would reply that it is not much easier to do so with regard to “policy-driven” research.
I bet my argument would be a big hit on the Hill.