|
Policy research for atmospheric scientistsRoger A. Pielke, Jr. In recent months I've received a steadily increasing number of inquiries from students and faculty in the atmospheric sciences asking about atmospheric sciences policy, what it is and how one might approach this area of scholarship. Here are some suggestions. Most importantly, become an expert. Your ability to contribute valuable knowledge depends upon your particular expertise. If you are the world's expert in a particular area, then you will have a much stronger basis for contributing to society's needs. Too often, however, knowledge of policy winds up being very broad and not very deep, and universities that seek to develop such expertise (e.g., generic "environmental studies" programs come to mind) often face criticism from their disciplinary colleagues. But a word of caution is also due: being an expert in one area does not mean that you are an expert in other areas. But recognize that "expert" does not have to be a synonym for "narrow." Of course, if your expertise is in a very narrow area, then your contributions to policy can be limited. Then again, in 1970 an expert on the then-obscure topic of the atmospheric properties of chlorofluorocarbons could not have anticipated the policy significance of this work over the next three decades. But if you would like to enhance the chances that your expertise is relevant to policy, then there are other types of expertise that have broad relevance across policy topics. For example, with the growing emphasis on the use of forecasts by decision makers, in coming years there will likely be a great need for experts in forecast verification. And a focus on policy decision processes, either in general or in the context of a particular area of science – like chlorofluorocarbons – will enhance the relevance of your expertise. Once, an expert was defined as someone who broke knowledge into small pieces and knew an awful lot about one small piece. Increasingly, the needs of policy require experts who can integrate diverse areas of knowledge. If you include a focus on problems and decisions as "units of analysis" in your research then you will enhance the potential relevance of your work. Typically researchers focus on phenomena (e.g., storms, precipitation) and processes (e.g., ENSO, radiative forcing). Usually this sort of specialized knowledge is necessary but not sufficient in the policy making process. Ultimately, decision makers want to know the answer to the question: "So what?" You will be in a much better position to contribute to the answer if you can clearly link your specialized knowledge of phenomena and processes with "Is this a problem? For whom? Of what magnitude? What can be done? What should be done?" Etc. Recognize that the answers to these questions often require the integration of a broad range of expertise. Practice suspending judgment. Good judgment, as John Dewey has written, requires that "we defer conclusions in order to infer more thoroughly." It is this willingness to entertain alternative explanations and solutions that distinguishes the policy advocate from the policy analyst. Always ask yourself, what knowledge would change my mind about this problem or decision? If the answer is no information, then you are simply pushing a particular answer. In this case you should look for expertise in marketing, not policy analysis. Identify and question assumptions. One of the great challenges facing a policy analyst is to become aware of the assumptions that guide thinking. For example, United States science policy since World War II has been guided by a linear model that holds that investments in "basic" research are the most effective way to address societal concerns. For many decades few questioned this assumption. But is this linear model actually the best? In the atmospheric sciences community we see a similar untested assumption in the area of forecasting. Considerable resources are often devoted to "improving forecasts," under an assumption that society will benefit from such improvements. But by comparison little effort is devoted to investigating the conditions under which this assumption is actually true. Because assumptions are usually unquestioned and sometimes incorrect, there is great value in being able to identify and question them in a rigorous, scientific manner. Dejargonify your speaking and writing. You can never speak or write too clearly, and there is always room for improvement. The best way to improve these skills is the tried and true formula of practice, practice, practice. Seek opportunities to communicate with people outside your own discipline or subject area expertise. At times this can be frustrating and humbling, but if you truly want to contribute to policy debate and discussion you will have to translate expertise into the language of the policy process, and not expect the opposite! Understand disciplinary "geography." As an expert with interests in policy it is essential that you understand how other areas of expertise fit in relation to both your own and the broader issues that you are concerned with. This places a greater burden upon you than on the disciplinary scholar who is satisfied to focus on purely disciplinary concerns. Not surprisingly, once stripped of jargon and disciplinary idiosyncrasies there is a great deal of overlap in methods, theories, and conclusions across disparate disciplines, particularly in the context of policy where problems and decisions ultimately bring everything together. Seek the right education and training. Traditionally, there have not been strong linkages within universities between atmospheric sciences departments and policy programs. For this to change will require the dedicated efforts of students and faculty to overcome the familiar obstacles that stand in the way, usually at the department level. There are a number of schools – Columbia, Penn State, Oklahoma, and Colorado are a few examples – that have the requisite expertise on campus to develop a strong atmospheric sciences program of research and education. And there are other efforts beginning as well, such as the Climate Affairs Program here at NCAR and the AMS Policy Program. For those interested in this area of study, begin to take advantage of the resources that are available to you. As demand increases, universities will move to meet it. Help to build a network of those with like interests. To that end we are announcing the initiation of a new email list-serv and an educational resource guide. The list-serv is called weather-policy, and to to join, fill out the on-line form. Or you can email majordomo@ucar.edu and in the body of the message include:
Its purpose is to provide a forum for discussion and communication among those interested in the educational and research aspects of atmospheric sciences policy. The educational resource guide will provide information directly from atmospheric sciences programs about their offerings in this area, as well collect this information, we will post it on our site or announce it in the WeatherZine. As always we welcome your feedback. — Roger A. Pielke, Jr. Comments? thunder@ucar.edu WeatherZine #23 Home Page
| Comments and Feedback
| Site Map |
