It's vital we build a strong foundation for understanding expertise in foreign policy. Let's examine scholarship from cognitive psychology, political science, and other fields of research.
".... advancing expertise requires us to think more like scientists." I could not agree more, but perhaps as the holder of a PhD in biological science I'm biased. You started the article by pointing out that an in-depth literature review is the starting point for scientific research. What I think is not properly understood is the fact that a proper literature review doesn't just examine published data, it carefully examines the different conceptual frameworks within which research questions have been asked and on which the data can then be hung. Before we can begin to ask new questions we need to know the history of how we got to where we think we are today, know the data, know the differing conceptual frameworks, know the different ways of interpreting the same data set. And then be able to explain why we have selected one set of interpretations over another.
It is blindingly obvious that precious few academics operating in the foreign policy space can do that. On a daily basis the China 'experts' in Western think tanks and University-hosted centres of 'expertise' display a total ignorance of non-Western conceptual systems. Most obvious to me because of my particular background is the profound reductionism of Western thinking in contrast to the systemic thinking that characterises much of the East.
“Many experienced actors falsely believe they have developed real expertise when they are no better than dart-throwing monkeys.” Thanks for a great read as always! And as always, I’m waiting eagerly to get deeper into a conversation about what we can DO to build true expertise.
Another thing I wonder after reading is how we might think about expertise at the group level—so from individual expertise, to unit expertise, to bureau expertise, to agency expertise. This is one of many models the U.S. foreign affairs machine supposes, with the idea that the vast breadth of expertise needed in unique policy settings is not likely to exist in the handful of individuals making decisions. In practice it leaves a lot to be desired.
Yes, I ultimately hope this will be an optimistic story; the changes necessary to start building expertise are actually pretty easy to implement. And you're absolutely correct that the changes need to be at the group (or agency) level of intervention.
The short answer (coming soon in long form!) is that the model travels well from individual to group level. Biases aggregate upwards, but so does expertise. It's OK if some of the tasks of building expertise are segmented as long as the components are designed to come together to support decision-makers. In practice, I think this means thinking carefully about five distinct stages of the decision-making process: 1) collecting and managing knowledge expertly; 2) conducting rigorous analysis of that information in order to (as objectively as possible) describe, explain, and predict the future; 3) creating policies and strategies based on the best available analysis of policy options; 4) monitoring, evaluating, and learning from policies as they're being implemented, and; 5) injecting those lessons back into the workforce through training, promotions, new hiring, etc. All of this depends on our political leaders identifying our priorities and working through ethical tradeoffs, which I think of as a matter of judgment and values, not expertise.
More to come! I hope you'll continue to ask good questions and weak points in these arguments.
Good article. Makes sense that it would be hard to measure foreign affairs expertise due to the long feedback loops. If you could breakdown the various aspects important for foreign affairs expertise in order to get better at the individual components, which would you rank as the most important?
I’d probably rank evidence citation as the most impactful skill that’s currently missing from the bureaucracy. When making a claim: back it up! But not like a lawyer who only gathers evidence to advance their side of the argument, but like a scientist who weighs all sides to test a hypothesis.
You’re asking exactly the right question. It’s one I hope to explore deeply in this space.
".... advancing expertise requires us to think more like scientists." I could not agree more, but perhaps as the holder of a PhD in biological science I'm biased. You started the article by pointing out that an in-depth literature review is the starting point for scientific research. What I think is not properly understood is the fact that a proper literature review doesn't just examine published data, it carefully examines the different conceptual frameworks within which research questions have been asked and on which the data can then be hung. Before we can begin to ask new questions we need to know the history of how we got to where we think we are today, know the data, know the differing conceptual frameworks, know the different ways of interpreting the same data set. And then be able to explain why we have selected one set of interpretations over another.
It is blindingly obvious that precious few academics operating in the foreign policy space can do that. On a daily basis the China 'experts' in Western think tanks and University-hosted centres of 'expertise' display a total ignorance of non-Western conceptual systems. Most obvious to me because of my particular background is the profound reductionism of Western thinking in contrast to the systemic thinking that characterises much of the East.
This is such an important point! Theoretical and conceptual frameworks are, in many respects, prerequisites for understanding the evidence.
“Many experienced actors falsely believe they have developed real expertise when they are no better than dart-throwing monkeys.” Thanks for a great read as always! And as always, I’m waiting eagerly to get deeper into a conversation about what we can DO to build true expertise.
Another thing I wonder after reading is how we might think about expertise at the group level—so from individual expertise, to unit expertise, to bureau expertise, to agency expertise. This is one of many models the U.S. foreign affairs machine supposes, with the idea that the vast breadth of expertise needed in unique policy settings is not likely to exist in the handful of individuals making decisions. In practice it leaves a lot to be desired.
Yes, I ultimately hope this will be an optimistic story; the changes necessary to start building expertise are actually pretty easy to implement. And you're absolutely correct that the changes need to be at the group (or agency) level of intervention.
The short answer (coming soon in long form!) is that the model travels well from individual to group level. Biases aggregate upwards, but so does expertise. It's OK if some of the tasks of building expertise are segmented as long as the components are designed to come together to support decision-makers. In practice, I think this means thinking carefully about five distinct stages of the decision-making process: 1) collecting and managing knowledge expertly; 2) conducting rigorous analysis of that information in order to (as objectively as possible) describe, explain, and predict the future; 3) creating policies and strategies based on the best available analysis of policy options; 4) monitoring, evaluating, and learning from policies as they're being implemented, and; 5) injecting those lessons back into the workforce through training, promotions, new hiring, etc. All of this depends on our political leaders identifying our priorities and working through ethical tradeoffs, which I think of as a matter of judgment and values, not expertise.
More to come! I hope you'll continue to ask good questions and weak points in these arguments.
Good article. Makes sense that it would be hard to measure foreign affairs expertise due to the long feedback loops. If you could breakdown the various aspects important for foreign affairs expertise in order to get better at the individual components, which would you rank as the most important?
I’d probably rank evidence citation as the most impactful skill that’s currently missing from the bureaucracy. When making a claim: back it up! But not like a lawyer who only gathers evidence to advance their side of the argument, but like a scientist who weighs all sides to test a hypothesis.
You’re asking exactly the right question. It’s one I hope to explore deeply in this space.