Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Too often the discussion of research and policy is driven
either implicitly or explicitly by assumed stark choice
between maintaining a program or defunding it.
too often this framing of policy evaluation leads to
a trench warfare between advocates
who automatically reject research that's not clearly program affirming
and program opponents
who look at research findings as a way to shrink government
Okay so the question is how do we best
connect research to policy. And the answer is
research has to be a little bit like a spare tire which is to say it's gotta be
there when the policy makers
need a new tire. It's a little difficult to sell them a tire when they've got
four that work
but when one's flat, you wanna be there with the spare
No one here is so naive as to think that research
can trump politics when it comes to policy, but if you wanna give truth a chance
you gotta do the research to make it possible.
We have challenges because the cultures both in academia and
in the policymaking community are very different, they're different timetables,
different incentives,
and you know they're just not naturally together, so I think that's
what makes APPAM so important.
One way to minimize the trench warfare in these extreme outcomes
is to frame the translation of research to policy differently.
For example an approach
could be to maintain an ongoing commitment of resources to the program
targeted by the original legislation
but continue to study the problem and search for programs that serve the
population effectively. This approach gets
out the binary mode of maintain or defund
but its predicated on spending more time
thinking about how we approach the problem and less
on narrowly targetting the solution. If you come to the conference
and you do you meet with practitioners and academics that you don't normally get a
chance to interact with, it's a great place to try to bridge the gap between
research and policy and practice.
As APPAM members looking to improve public policy management
we must remain committed to reliance on evidence
even when it points in directions that are inconsistent with our initial beliefs
or our political views. The world that policymakers live in
and the world that researchers live in demand
different things, have different time frames, have different points of view
and one of the most important things I think is for
each of them to listen to the other. Policy analysis where you look at
serious important policy problems you apply your best
social science research and skills to it, your policy analysis skills to it
helps you identify where there are gaps in research
where you can apply your research skills to a current problem.
Make the connection between research and practice. They're partners on the same path
and they should not be siloed. You pick something that people care about
you pick big issues, you bring rigor and great data to your research and if you do
that and you
do a good job, people will listen and people will
care and you can make a difference in how the world operates.
Don't be shy about drawing the implications
and making policy recommendations from the evidence. We're able to connect dots
that others can not see clearly. My favorite songwriter Paul Westerberg says
we may be the ones to set the world on its ear.
If not, then why are we here?
If not indeed. It's up to us.