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.
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?
".... 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.
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?