A debate roars between academia and the policy making
community: individuals in each of these realms have not shied away from lobbing
criticism at the other. James Joyner of Outside
the Beltway castigated the IR academic community when he said, “The down side,
though, is that the academic study of IR has divorced itself from the real
world study of the actual conduct of international relations…And the work being
done by academics in IR is largely irrelevant and inaccessible to the policy
community.” Daniel Drezner countered Joyner by showing how academic research can be policy-relevant and suggests ways
in which academics could help to make their work more accessible to policy
wonks and policy-makers.
How does this pertain to my experiences in Washington, D.C.
so far? Well, I have hitherto been exposed primarily to the academic and
theoretical perspective of politics, reading the same scholarly sources that
Joyner chastised in his blog post as well as text books written for
undergraduate-level students. So far, I have seen several examples of
differences between the theory-based, academic perspective of politics and the
“real world” view of politics. First, the theory-based, academic approach does
not capture the emotions and passion of politics in the real world. Second,
policy makers’ tools of analysis are a vital part of making decisions and coming
to conclusions. Finally, “real world” politics is conducted in “real-time,” and
analysis is made at a moment’s notice. Academia has the leisure of taking its
time and gathering data and information to create theories and conclusions (not
necessarily a bad thing). It is important, notwithstanding these differences,
that the theory and the “real world” sides connect to help to inform one
another.
I have had numerous opportunities to see how emotions and
passion factor into policy-makers’ and political figures’ views of certain
issues. I recently attended an event at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace where the former spokesman for Iran’s nuclear weapons program
discussed a new book he wrote on the development of the country’s nuclear
program. It is both a memoir and an analytic piece wrapped into one. When he
spoke of his views, which are much different than the predominant ones in the
U.S. on this issue, his emotion and passion for Iran’s nuclear program helped
me to empathize a bit with Iran’s policy. Without the emotion and passion and
face-to-face interaction, I would feel a bit differently about Iran’s nuclear
program. This dynamic is something that an academic paper cannot capture and
convey to its readers.
The second difference is that I have had the chance to learn
about the tools that policymakers and wonks have at their disposal to analyze
political developments and trends. I have had three such opportunities. First,
an information session at the U.S. capitol hosted by the Federation of American
Scientists looked at the development of nuclear detection technology that helps
the Department of Homeland Security address the threat of nuclear terrorism.
Second, a senior fellow at the Stimson Center held an informational seminar on
geospatial information systems (GIS) and how it can be used by think tanks and
policy-makers to glean insights into various geopolitical developments. The
third event was held again by the Federation of American Scientists, this time
at their office near the Farragut North Metro Station. A few experts showed how
we can use satellite imagery to detect other countries’ nuclear forces as well
as their nuclear postures. Hans Kristensen, an FAS expert, used satellite
imagery to conclude that China has two or three nuclear submarines and that it
had one nuclear launcher pointed towards a Russian base in Kamchatka (two of
several examples). These three examples show how policymakers have tools at
their disposal, and these tools bring them to perceive issues in certain ways.
These tools of analysis are not discussed much in the theory of policymaking.
Rather, the theory is mainly focused on behavior and the decision-making
processes of the policymakers/actors.
A final difference is that think tanks and policymakers deal
with imperfect information that is often given to them at a moment’s notice,
oftentimes as political events unfold. In contrast, academics and those involved
in the ‘theory’ side of politics can spend a much greater amount of time
accumulating data and information and then coming to conclusions. Each side is
important though. The analysis provided by think tanks and decisions made by
policymakers are much more ‘in the moment’ (although many think tanks research
issues spanning long periods of time). Academia can provide insights to broader
political trends and the policy implications of those trends.
To conclude, it is vital to understand that both the “real
world” and theoretical world can help to inform each other, enrich each others’
body of work, and provide more informed policy prescriptions in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment