Ken R.

Hi Irene,

I have only been a consultant on a couple of projects. One was the Rural Internet Access Authority here in NC and currently, I am working with the Department of Homeland Security on a project about the radicalization of the Internet.

My biggest questions center on whether policymakers even care about what academics think. How much can/should academics work their way into gov’t circles? We want to be policy relevant, but keep our academic freedom. I’d love to be involved more locally, too. I think that is where a lot of work gets done and is sometimes overlooked. Questions about involvement at a variety of levels of government.

I haven’t had a chance to look at the panels yet, but I’ll try to get to it!

Thanks again.

ken

Rick F on communicating with policymakers

Irene:

Below is the information that my new intern found on efforts by the scientific community to better communicate with policy makers. The second one looks like a good starting point.

I’ve started making a little list of ideas, which might eventually result in an outline.

Rick

There are several articles and papers regarding the scientist/policymaker communication issue. There is a lot of information from individual authors if that is what you would like me to look into. However, I was trying to find conferences or studies that brought together several people from the scientific and public communities. Here are a few things that I found:

(1) Aldo Leopold Leadership Program (ALLP) http://leopoldleadership.stanford.edu/

I believe this program might be what we were aiming for. The Program was created in 1998 and holds several conferences or trainings per year for researchers whom specialize in environmental science. Policy specialists, leading researchers, and business leaders participate in sessions in which the researchers are taught methods to engage with and communicate to decision makers and opinion shapers. One major focus has been to build relationships between scientists and policymakers.

This is a link to the June 2008 Conference Presentation. http://woods.stanford.edu/leopold/ct/index.html The topics and speakers are listed. If you click on the topic, the link will expand on the topic issue. Other conference agendas are also on the website.

(2) http://homepage.mac.com/mcolyvan/papers/ecomanagement.pdf

This article presents recommendations from a conference held by environmental scientists in Australia in February 2008. The group included researchers from Australia ’s Commonwealth Environment Research Facilities (CERF) research hub for Applied Environmental Decision Analysis (AEDA), policymakers and managers from the Australian Government’s Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) and other practitioners. The article presents ways to improve engagement between policymakers and researchers at an individual and organizational level.

(3) http://www.sip.ucar.edu/wasis/norman/pdf/Role_of_Scientists_in_Policy_Decisions.pdf

This was a study done by the Oklahoma Climatological Survey that involved research scientists and state directors from several states that were engaged in state drought planning. It discussed key findings for methods of communication and interaction between scientists and policymakers.

Franke W: APSA Panel or Section?

Thanks Irene.

As for (2) and (3) below – I (greatly greatly) appreciate your time and effort to take a first swipe at (3). I may have time to do the same just before Toronto – but not in the immediate next week or two.

On (2), while I hesitate to suggest forming yet another section, perhaps a round table or two at each APSA annual meeting would be in order? In my case and probably others there is no doubt that time spent in political practice cuts severely into time for scholarship. I am working on a textbook that has nothing to do with the state legislature but also does not generate research papers. Still, it is important, I think, to remain intellectually engaged with the profession and attending the annual meeting is the single best and most efficient way to do that.

So perhaps it would help some of us who are less research active as a result of public service still manage to be on the program and thus obtain some help with funding to attend the annual conference. Of course I also think that a couple of roundtables would be interest to others in the profession as well as to those of us engaged in political practice. I guess I don’t know how many people we are talking about. And as I said, I would not want this to get caught up in a campaign to start another APSA section – but this might be proposed as something included in every APSA annual meeting without having a section, rather sponsored by the program committee chair/s. Is that something that should be taken up with the Governing Council - because I can do that.

Beyond that, a listserv could be useful. As a state legislator I often sound like Johnny-one-note in committee and floor discussions when I ask “what have other states done? How are other states addressing the public employee retirement system crisis?” etc etc. But if there are too few of us working in one kind of venue, a listserv may not be of much use. I also found myself collaborating with feds on the issue of Veterans’ post-deployment mental health assessment and care – so there are times when I benefit from talking with someone other than other state-level practitioners.

Those are about the only ideas I have for now. Have I missed meeting times and dates or are they not out yet? You know how booked and overbooked we tend to get as the conference approaches.

Thanks again and I look forward to meeting you and our fellow practitioners!

Yours,

Franke W

David A.

Dr. Wu: Thanks for your note. I am not presently in government service. But over the course of my academic career I have taken leave to serve as a member of a state public service commission (regulating utilities) and as a state revenue secretary (formulating tax policy and collecting taxes). I have also served in a number of unpaid, part-time government roles: as member and then chairman of a state elections board, regulating campaign finance; as a member of a state criminal justice board that allocated law enforcement grants to local governments; as a member of an advisory committee in the United States Department of Education that reviewed accrediting bodies for their conformance with federal law. Along the way, I also served as a university president at two large urban research universities, for a total period of 21 years. My efforts to integrate public service into university workways met, I'm sorry to say, with only limited success, as did my efforts to persuade academic people to recruit those serving in public service into the faculty. (The few occasions where this was done turned out, however, to be quite successful.)

My principal interest and concern is how academic people can move back and forth between academe and public service. This has become increasingly difficult with the heavy pressure to publish and with the enormous expansion of knowledge in each academic subdiscipline, making it difficult for anyone who undertakes public service to keep up in his/her field. And the reverse is true: it is more and more difficult for those who serve in government to rotate into and through academic appointments, largely for the same reasons.

If this background and set of interests is at all valuable to the discussions you plan, please let me know.

David A

Jorge H.

Jorge H. is Ambassador of Chile to India, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka, and Vice-President of the International Political Science Association (IPSA). He was previously Ambassador to South Africa (1994-1999) as well as a cabinet minister and deputy minister in the Chilean government. A lawyer and political scientist, he holds a PhD in Political Science from Stanford University, has been a Visiting Fellow at St. Antony's College, Oxford, and a Research Associate at The Wilson Center in Washington, DC. He has held postdoctoral fellowships from the Social Science Research Council and the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, and has been a consultant to the United Nations, the Ford Foundation, and Oxford Analytica. He is the author, co-author, or editor of eight books, including The Last Cacique: Leadership and Politics in a Puerto Rican City (Pittsburgh University Press, Choice Magazine Outstanding Academic Book of 1994), A Revolution Aborted: The Lessons of Grenada (Pittsburgh University Press, 1991), and (with Leslie Manigat) Cross Currents and Cleavages: International Relations of the Contemporary Caribbean (Holmes & Meier, 1988), and some 60 articles published in journals and symposium volumes. His opinion pieces have been published in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The International Herald Tribune. He was the first ambassador to present credentials to President Nelson Mandela, and for two years in a row (1997 and 1998), Johannesburg's leading newspaper, The Star, selected him among the 100 most influential personalities in South Africa

Attached is a link to his article, "On the manner of practising the new diplomacy"
Abstract: The traditional model of diplomacy, founded on the principles of national sovereignty and of statecraft, is becoming less relevant as a field of new, influential actors enter the international system. Diplomats must now engage a vastly larger number of players in host countries, as the age-old “club model” of diplomacy gives way to a less hierarchical “network model.” This paper calls for a new approach – one in which diplomats project their nation’s values and interests to the growing field of international players, focusing on a critical set of issue areas of special relevance to the mission. Although the environment in which diplomacy is practised has changed drastically, the adaptive behaviour of many diplomats and foreign ministries has not always kept pace with this new reality. This is part of the reason they are not fully able to take advantage of the many opportunities offered by increased international flows and interactions. Drawing on the author’s diplomatic experience in South Africa and India, it is argued that diplomats are no longer sheltered from the political realm; that they are more accessible by and have wider access to non-state actors; and that they must respond to the vast array of demands these new factors pose.

Random Assignment in Social Policy Research

From your work at the FCC, likely you know that rigorous studies using random assignment are very costly, take a long time, and largely have only marginal impacts. Beyond that, the politics of getting research incorporated into policy is a difficult matter, and a colleague and I recently contributed to a dialogue on this subject that was published in JPAM (attached, see p. 166). Further, I have contributed to a new book by Steve Wandner that should published early next year, titled, Solving the Reemployment Puzzle: From Research to Policy, by the W.E. Upjohn Institute of Employment. It also tackles the knotty problem which your work group raises.

http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0By-hlftoq8Z3ZjM1M2Q5MDktZTNiNS00Mjc0LWE2MjctNzgxNDk5MmNmOWQ2&hl=en

Social Science Methods and Government Effectiveness

Dick Nathan’s talk held on July 16 may have been right up your alley. Dick has allowed us to send to NCAPSA (National Capital Area American Political Science Association) members a lecture he recently gave for the National Association for Welfare Research and Statistics titled, “Social Science Methods and Government Effectiveness.” In the talk, Nathan believes researchers should assign a higher priority to institutional studies (e.g. process analysis), which can make a difference in finding out how public programs really operate. On behalf of NCAPSA, APSA will be sending it very soon.

David B.

http://www.rockinst.org/nawrs/papers/2009-07-Social_Science_Methods.pdf

Project at nexus of research and policymaking - international communications services

Who Regulates Phones, Television, and the Internet? What Makes a Communications Regulator Independent and Why It Matters
Perspectives on Politics, December 2008

More political scientists should engage in the debates surrounding regulation of communications networks, the infrastructure on which telecom, media, and Internet services ride. In 1990 there were 14 communications regulators worldwide, by 2007 there were 148. To fulfill World Trade Organization Agreement on Basic Telecommunications commitments, many countries aim to create regulatory agencies that are “independent.” What characterizes independence? Regulators are embedded in a political context that includes three main constituencies : other government institutions, industry, and consumers. Independent regulators are able to take action autonomously from other government institutions and industry while serving as advocates for consumers. In a survey of 18 countries, several traits emerge; a leader who cannot be dismissed arbitrarily, regulatory authority clearly distinct from policy- making, independent funding, minimal staff exchange between regulator and regulated firm, and dedicated support for consumers. It is usually easier for a regulator to be independent if operators are privatized. In a study of 4 countries, independent regulators follow decision-making procedures that give the public notice about proposed rule changes, opportunities to provide comments, and final decisions with explanation. Also, independent regulators have gift, conflict of interest, and post-employment rules, which set ethical standards and expectations for staff.

http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0By-hlftoq8Z3NzAxOGM1MWItMGU1Mi00YmE4LWExYjQtMjdiZDUxMjE2Yjhl&hl=en

Franke W.

In 2005 Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer appointed Franke to chair the Montana Human Rights Commission. In 2006 she was elected to a seat in the Montana State House of Representatives, re-elected for a second term in 2008, and elected by her colleagues to serve as Speaker Pro Tempore in the 2009-11 term. She served on the House Education and House State Administration and Veteran’s Affairs committees in 2007 and again in 2009. In 2008-09 Franke chaired the House Interim Committee on State Administration and Veteran’s Affairs. She also serves on the Governor’s Capital Financial Advisory Council.

Franke worked with the Democratic Women’s Caucus to develop legislation on pay equity and closing the gender wage gap and sponsored of a landmark piece of legislation in the 2009 (it was however defeated) to achieve those objectives. She was also recently elected by the American Political Science Association membership to serve on the APSA Governing Council. In 2009 she was appointed to serve on the Environmental Quality Council created by the Montana Environmental Protection Act to monitor its implementation. Along with Representative David Roundstone (D Lame Deer, MT), Franke organized a Clean Energy Legislative Caucus in 2009.

Franke has also served on the Board of Directors of the Gallatin Human Rights Network (1994-2000) and was one of its founding members; on the Board of Directors, of Congregation Beth Shalom (2006-09); and is Co-Chair of the Social Action Committee for Congregation Beth Shalom (2007-10).

Jeff S.

Hi Irene,

Thanks for setting up the working group! I think it is a great idea and am looking forward to the sessions.

About my work in government: I am currently a Section Research Manager at the Congressional Research Service. I lead/coordinate/facilitate the research of 11 analysts focusing on a wide range of issues related to the organization and management of executive branch agencies. By statute, our work is done exclusively for Congress (Members, committees, and their staff), and includes activities such as writing reports and confidential memoranda, providing briefings, and testifying at hearings. When carrying out our research, there is a significant emphasis on objectivity, non-partisanship, and authoritativeness. Previous to becoming a section research manager, I was a policy analyst at CRS focusing on information technology policy issues.

Ideas for group discussion: What kinds of skills should undergraduate/graduate programs be emphasizing for students interested in government careers?
1. What kind of internship programs do agencies have (or should have) that would be appealing to students?
2. What kinds of collaborative research projects could be done between federal agencies and universities that involve students? (i.e., CRS has a "capstone" program in which it does projects with MPA programs.)
3. Some Ph.D. programs discourage (either openly or subtly) students from considering non-academic careers. What could/should be done to reorient attitudes regarding non-academic careers? Are such programs actually doing a disservice to their students in light of the difficulties in finding an academic job?

Panels: I have tentatively flagged some in the public policy section and the ITP section due to personal interest, although I am not sure they are very related to this working group. A few that might be of interest to the working group include:
Thursday, Sep 3, 10:15 AM

11-51 Leadership and Policy Change in the Era of Complexity

Thursday, Sep 3, 8:00 AM

39-5 Policy Change and the Governance of Controversial Science


Friday, Sep 4, 4:15 PM

25-11 Agenda Setting and Policy Change in New Contexts


Thanks,

-Jeff S.

Amy F.

Dear Dr. Wu,
I am quite looking forward to APSA and to participating with this working group. Per your email below,

1. I received my doctorate from The University of Georgia in 1997. Immediately prior to this, I worked as a Legislative Assistant on telecommunications, trade and technology policies for Rep. Tillie K. Fowler (R-FL). I am now a Senior Lecturer at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand. Over the last few years, I have contributed as either a speaker or an invited workshop participant at seminars convened by the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology (MoRST).

2. I am quite interested in discussing how political scientists and policy analysts can raise their visibility in both American and international policy contexts. I am also interested in how we can bring this dimension into graduate and undergraduate teaching. Finally, I'm noticing a proliferation of groups related to Science Communication and public participation in policy, and think policy analysts need to connect with these research/practice agendas.

3. Here are some potential panels of interest to the group: * Committee on the Political Economy of the Good Society. Author Meets Critics: James Fishkin, When People Speak--Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. (Friday, 8 AM)* British Politics Group. Roundtable on Pressure Groups and Policy Processes. (Thursday, 2 PM)* ECPR. Energy Policy and Global Warming - American and European Approaches (Sat, 10.15 AM)* Conference Group on Theory, Polic and Society. Expertise and Public Policy (Sun, 10.15 AM)

Cheers,
Amy F.

Rick F.

Irene:
Thanks for the email. It is good to hear from you. I am excited to learn more about the group. Here is my story.

Prior to graduate school I was involved in campaign politics. While ABD at the University of Oklahoma, I joined the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron where I taught campaign management. Shortly after earning tenure I was offered an opportunity to return to Oklahoma as the director of committee staff at the House of Representatives. For the past 5 years I have been managing a staff that includes researchers, attorneys and budget analysts. In addition to managing the committee process we provide information to legislators upon request.

Brainstorming is fun. Here are some topic that might interest the group.
1. Internship – the OK House uses about 20 interns each year. It would be interesting to hear how other agencies recruit, train and use interns.
2. Working in a political environment – It is often difficult to find people who will be candidate about their experiences.
3. Redistricting – This might only be interesting to me, but it will be a big part of my life over the next couple of years.
4. How experience affects theory – It might be fun to hear how people’s thinking has changed since they became a .
5. What we can do to help students see the potential of a political science degree.

If we could issue a paper on how to make political science research valuable to policy makers that would be a significant accomplishment.
The panels that I plan to attend involve campaign finance. Also, there are several posters on redistricting which I hope to see.
I look forward to hearing from you and learning more about the working group.
Rick F.

Holli S.

Dear Irene,
Thanks for organizing this new group at APSA. I will not be there on the days you are meeting, but I wanted to get on your mailing list.
Best wishes,
Holli S.

Stu S.

Hi Irene,I think you may remember me as the organizer of a tool test for rule writers. I direct the eRulemaking Research Group:http://people.umass.edu/stu/eRulemaking/I think someone from your office attended one of our sessions.I will send more detailed responses soon.thanks. ~Stu S.

Irene W.

Hello, everyone. I'm Irene, and I started this working group because I thought those of us who are political scientists working in the government might have an interesting perspective to offer other APSA members.

Currently, I work as research director in the international section of the Federal Communications Commission, the US regulatory agency for telecom, media and Internet services. I cover all regions of the world and spend most of my time reviewing regulatory and policy papers generated by international government organizations and directing agency work when it involves covering more than one country or region of the world.

Recently, I published a book with Stanford University Press, From Iron Fist to Invisible Hand: the Uneven Path of Telecommunications Reform in China. Also, I am an adjunct professor at Georgetown University, where I have been teaching a graduate seminar on regulating international communications networks.

I look forward to meeting everyone in the working group at the upcoming annual meeting.