Thread by @jkyleindc

After 2+ yrs working in fed gov't and frequently using evidence to support policy implementation, a🧵w observations & ideas on fostering closer ties between research supply & demand and on #altac careers more generally:

People: I'm so impressed by the mission-driven and genuinely kind public servants I met working in govt. Retaining this talent, attracting new people with innovative & diverse approaches, and adjusting staffing to meet contemporary challenges is a 🔑challenge facing govt (1/n)

People: Do you want to make the best friends of your life, while working on interesting topics and having the chance to use what you know from research to improve policy & have real world impact? Seriously, try out a career in fed govt! (2/n)

Participation: One thing that has really stuck with me is how much civil servants care about interactions with the public. Submit a comment to the Federal Register or request a meeting with an agency official on an issue that matters to you (3/n)

federalregister.gov

Participation, cont: Even if it doesn't change the course of a policy at the time, those interactions plant a seed. I took detailed notes and saved every piece of correspondence with the public and returned to it over and over for information and insight... (4/n)

...into how a particular policy affected someone. It put essential info that was difficult to gather on my own in my hands, but also was incredibly motivating to keep working for better outcomes. (5/n)

Timing: Everything in govt runs on a timing cycle: policy development cycles, budgetary cycles, and other deadlines driven by laws or urgent real world challenges. It is frustrating to get the evidence you need at a time when you have no ability to use it. (6/n)

Timing, cont: It's even more frustrating to have a Q where even a back of the envelope, directional answer would be helpful but no clear way of communicating to researchers what would be helpful (7/n)

Timing, cont: Conversely, I wish that research funders were more patient on timing of impact. Change within large institutions takes time (yrs), and the window of opportunity to make a change may not happen right away even if evidence does convince the key decisionmaker (8/n)

2-way communication: Improving communication between researchers and policymakers on what❓s need answers and corresponding timing could improve the usefulness of research for policymakers and increase the impact / uptake of good quality research. (9/n)

Comms, cont: There are some ❓s where great exploratory analysis on a tight timeframe could really move the ball forward, and other ❓s where rigor and longer time horizons are more important for where the policy cycle is (10/n)

Comms, cont: Wouldn't it be great if there was a centralized way of for policymakers to communicate to academics what evidence is really needed with info about timing? And, if academics could quickly respond where evidence already exists? PS - does this exist? (11/n)

Comms, cont: The Federal Register is one place where the govt solicits info from the public on things it needs to know about, but it would be difficult to respond on something where new evidence is needed within a 60-day public comment window. (12/n)

Tradeoffs: Everything in govt is limited (budget, staff time). Research on what should be scaled down given current impact, so that policymakers know what to trade off against when new evidence or a new challenge arises that reqs scaling something else up would be helpful (13/n)

Tradeoffs: Policy recs are often asking govts to take on something new w/out acknowledging that resources are limited, even if just staff time. The research❓is often: would x improve y rather than would x improve y relative to other uses of same resources (14/n)

Authorities: As a researcher, I rarely thought carefully enough about authorities & mandates of different offices when I tried to translated research findings into policy recommendations. Govt is not a unitary actor, and thinking harder about audience would raise impact (15/n)

Authorities, cont: Nor did I think enough about options -- i.e. what's the version of this idea that could be implemented by a specific office within their authorities / mandate, and are there different sized options (e.g. an idea for a pilot project vs. wholesale reform) (16/n)

Coalition-building: Any kind of initiative in govt takes coalition-building & persuasion. Cross-functional and interagency work takes a lot of effort and staff time just to schedule, usually on top of normal daily workflows. Research could help w this! (17/n)

Are there spillover effects of a policy proposal that could help to build a coalition for reform? Govt is a complex system. Research that helps policymakers think through effects across policy domains could help changemakers navigate that complex system (18/n)

Coalition-building, cont: Academics should make more time to present to mid- & sr-level civil servants. Few transformative changes are made with a single signature, and civil servants can be the difference between policy change on paper and in practice (19/n)

Even when evidence is convincing, reform often takes a 'policy champion' raising the idea over and over to higher levels, keeping an idea on agendas among so many other competing priorities, & using political savvy to build a reform coalition among other offices (20/n)

Alt-ac careers: I'm always happy to talk to academics interested in working in policy or #altac careers. I have stepped back and forth between research and policy a few times now... (21/n)

... I've found this to be tricky to navigate professionally (someone is taking a chance on a non-traditional candidate on either end of the process) but also valuable and rewarding (22/n)

I approached policy differently from having a strong knowledge of evidence, and I approach research differently from having spent time on the 'where the rubber meets the road'. I hope that both ac and #altac careers continue to grow in acceptance of moving back & forth! (23/n)