post by Bill Gardner
Judy Sebba of the University of Sussex has a useful post on getting research into policy. I wrote related posts here and here, as did Austin Frakt here and here.
She notes that academic writing is often useless to decision makers. It can be impenetrably technical, or it can fail to offer clear outcomes or policy implications. Academics can learn from Think Tanks how to
synthesise, create or communicate information and give advice to the public and policy-makers...; [and] ...be far more ‘media savvy’ than academics [by working] with staff who have backgrounds in the communication industry...
If they do this, they can
link researchers and decision-makers or act as a ‘broker’ between them.
I made a similar point using this graph about the role of policy intellectuals in the research diffusion process.
Sebba notes, however, that
[Think tanks] do not subject their work to review by others and so the quality of their outputs are not assessed.
There is another problem with think tanks. Many are funded by stakeholders in the health industry, or they are closely tied to a political party, or both. Sometimes this results in 'analysis' that is just lightly disguised lobbying.
Partisan think tanks also risk being listened to only by the like-minded. The graph below is a network analysis of linking patterns among conservative and liberal political blogs. The tight clustering suggests that many of these writers are simply echoing each other.
So, what can academics learn from think tanks? Specifically, can they write timely articles with clear policy implications without getting caught in the webs of deep red or deep blue? Yes, I hope, if we can find ways to bring something like the accountability to the facts provided by peer review into academic blogging.
Funny, I just was thinking about this. Read the first few sentences:
http://blogs.hospitalmedicine.org/SHMPracticeManagementBlog/?p=3193
I did not link to the network analysis at the bottom and their methods, but how valid do you think the diagram is at, say, the middle third?
How do you define terms, ideological overlaps, etc.?
I read your blog and TIE--I know where everyone stands, just about, ideologically for example. If Austin talks about competitive bidding in the context of a (+) ACA platform, where does that fall on the spectrum--right or left.
Conversely, if Gail Wilensky skins ACOs in the context of a "pro" Medicare post, how do you categorize?
I think both of us would say, in the center, but are the IT folks behind the analyses we see above able to parse the difference. If not, or its questionable, the pretext of you post is somewhat tenuous. I say that with utmost respect of course in the spirit of advancing dialog.
Echo chamber exists, but a slice of that world might be misrepresented. Or, perhaps not--I just dont want to put my nickel down as yet.
Brad
Posted by: Brad F | 09/27/2011 at 07:09 PM
Brad,
Thanks. And thanks also for pointing me to your blog -- the mortality / readmission tradeoff data you discuss deserve a lot of thought. I did not realize that you were a hospitalist.
Your question is a good -- my post overgeneralizes. I follow bloggers in both parties. They are people who have clear party affiliations, but are committed to fair argument and evidence. But they are hard to find. So I kind of buy the message of the network graph.
Posted by: Bill Gardner | 09/27/2011 at 08:42 PM