The role of academics in public policy formation
2009 September 24
There’s a bit of an argument happening on Twitter at the moment as a result of Geordie Guy claiming that it isn’t the place of academics to comment on what policy should be, only on what it is, has been and might be. Identifying options rather than making a recommendation. There’s a bit of back and forth between him, Michael Meloni, Kylie Pappalardo, Nic Suzor and myself at the moment but 140 character isn’t enough (as Geordie has said). Here’s somewhere for discussion.
I think the problem is mainly with the categorical statements. Some academics contribute well and importantly to public debate. Some do not. I think Geordie was wrong to suggest that there is such a thing as a proper role for academics.
Having said that, I think that an important part of research is involvement and participation in public discourse. I think that academics who don’t contribute to discourse aren’t doing a terribly good job.
I agree with you, Nic. Academia doesn’t give one carte blanche to contribute to any debate one feels like. For example, I would trust Noam Chomsky’s stance on linguistics over his stance on Israel/Palestine any day, simply because he’s made his academic career on linguistics. It’d be worth a listen, but I wouldn’t take it all as gospel.
Discounting the role that statisticians, law academics, social policy academics, etc. play in the public policy debate (and alternative policy formation) is quite anti-intellectual.
I don’t subscribe to the view that only industry and politicians really know what’s going on and can make worthwhile contributions to policy debates. That sort of thinking has landed us with some terrible policy. Geordie and I have argued before about the financial self-interest of business versus the quest for knowledge of academia and come up on opposite sides of the question “Who do you trust?” I think it’s can almost totally be put down to ideology. The profit motive doesn’t make the best policy, nor the best society.
I think several things that I didn’t say have crept in there with what I did Sam.
To discount the role of statisticians, law academics, social policy academics etc. play in public policy debate would be a grave mistake indeed, they have a role, they in fact have several, and none of them are inferior (or for that matter) superior to those who garner their expertise from industry and commerce.
In the “twebate” yesterday I clarified what I believe somewhat, my starting premise was that academics have no role in the “architecture” if you like, of future public policy. That got correctly developed (although it’s missing from here) as follows;
Some of my Tweets at Nic identified that academics have a further commitment to a body of existing evidence, I stated that as empiricism and Nic countered – and I accepted – that it’s probably closer to integrity which surrounds that. People who provide input into public policy debates out of expertise gained from industry and commerce are more accepted as speaking from their own personal opinions as a result of their own personal experience; think of questions that journalists might ask for example. If a journalist asks a businessperson a question, that question is phrased or otherwise means “what is your experience, or understanding, based from what you have observed extensively from your efforts in comprehending this body of knowledge to a sufficient extend that you realise profit out of your skill?”.
The question to an academic is, “what is your experience, or understanding, based from what you have studied for the purposes of extending both your own knowledge – either purely for knowledge’s sake or to participate in a greater pursuit of knowledge.”
This is a black and white representation of it, there are more greys than there are black and white which I sortof put to you over twitter yesterday. There are “professional academics” was your example, but it’s even broader than that. There are professionals who wish to participate in academia to further their own knowledge or the public sphere and there is everything in between that example and your original one.
Dismissing the greys for a moment as being obvioiusly different shaded combinations of the two concepts, what does this lend the natural role of academics in public policy to be versus that of professionals from industry and commerce?
To use the censorship example, academics would naturally speak to the understanding of censorship policy in history, comparative, normative comment and debate about the policy and perhaps the policy elsewhere, as well as having sufficient understanding of the field to make projections about what alternatives are, what some of the effects may be etc.
A professional would speak differently, from their own direct experience in testing the commercial viability (easily enough translatable into simply “viability”, things which are not commercially viable tend to fade from status as evidence rather quickly) of various methods, plans and the like. They’ve likely put chips on the table on these issues and tested them in much larger, less controlled environments than perhaps the academic’s evidence comes from (important not to conflate this with the mythical “real world” concept that actual anti-intellectuals propose).
To my mind this leads academics generally, to be better suited to providing input on what is, was, and theoretically could be. It leads professionals to provide better input on what should be based on or compared to what is. It doesn’t obviate academics providing direction based on empirical expertise, nor does it obviate the likelihood a professional’s expertise comes in part from research and study, firefighters can tackle burglars to the ground and police can pour water on flames as well.