|
By Gibson Haynes
On Wednesday, Sept. 16, our class was joined by Dr. Evan Medeiros, who shared with us his experiences in both think tanks and government service. Dr. Medeiros, who holds a PhD in International Relations from the London School of Economics and Political Science, has worked in think tanks including the Center for Nonproliferation Studies and the RAND Corporation as a political scientist. However, from August of 2009, he entered into government service with the US National Security Council as director for China, Taiwan, and Mongolia affairs, advising the President and the National Security Advisor on the region. In July, 2013, he was promoted to Senior Director for Asian Affairs within the National Security Council, a position he held until June of this year. With high-level experience in both environments, he shared valuable information on the operation of think tanks, the policymaking process, and the interaction between the two. He began the talk by noting that the relationship between think tanks and policymaking is highly contextual; it depends in large part on the country in which a think tank is located and the traditions found there. In the United States, think tanks are predominantly independent from the government, funded by many individuals, foundations, and interest groups. This independence, alongside a commitment to nonpartisan research and recommendations, typifies the think tank tradition in the US; Dr. Medeiros asserted that the source of this tradition is the strength of the philanthropic mindset in the US. However, it was noted that these traditions are changing with the proliferation of partisan institutions. China’s think tank traditions represent a different model, where the institutions are predominantly either official branches of government or funded by government organizations. The association of think tanks with government may stem from the prevailing tradition of public intellectuals in China as proponents of the country’s advancement. |
张涵奇 供稿
9月16日的上午，麦艾文（Evan Medeiros）博士亲临我们的课堂，与同学们分享了他在智库以及美国政府工作中的丰富经验。麦艾文博士在伦敦政治经济学院获得国际关系博士学位，作为一名政治学家，他曾效力于多家智库，其中包括防扩散研究中心和美国兰德公司等。2009年8月起，他进入美国政府工作，先后在美国国家安全委员会担任中国、台湾、蒙古国事务主任。2013年7月，他晋升为美国国家安全委员会亚洲事务高级主任，任职至今年7月。麦艾文博士将他在智库及政府两种环境下从事高端工作的经验分享给同学，使得大家对于智库运营、政策制定以及两者之间的互动关系加深了理解。 首先，麦艾文博士表示智库和政策制定之间的具体关系要视智库所在的国家以及当地的相关惯例而定。在美国，智库绝大多数独立于政府，受到为数众多的个人、基金会和利益集团资助。美国智库致力于无党派倾向的研究和政策建议，这点和它们的独立性一起，使美国智库独树一帜。麦艾文博士强调，这种智库传统受益于美国的慈善捐赠观念。然而，随着有具体派别的机构的增多，这种传统正在悄然转变。另一方面，中国的智库体制不同于美国。中国智库机构绝大多数隶属政府或者受到政府机构资助。这种体制多半来源于中国知识界为国家进步而奋斗的传统。 |
|
Dr. Medeiros gave recommendations for properly conducting research in a think tank environment, acknowledging that he would be using a US-centric model, as this is the system he participated in. He emphasized three components in producing useful research: a quality research question, a quality research process, and a quality policy recommendation.
In deciding on a research question, a scholar’s answer must provide new knowledge. Knowing the research environment and what has been done before allows a scholar to identify which topics are under-researched while not repeating others’ work. At the same time, a scholar must also know something of the current trends in policy circles in order to produce research that policymakers will find relevant to their needs. To that end, building relationships with and asking questions of people in government is important. How the scholar performs the research itself is critical to its usefulness. After all, if it is not conducted in an academically rigorous fashion, a study will produce neither accurate results nor a helpful policy recommendation. This is not to say that only quantitative methods can be used or that they are superior to qualitative methods; not every policy question lends itself to data-based analysis. Instead, a researcher can use case studies and controlled comparison to produce useful qualitative analyses. These sorts of analyses are particularly relevant if they are based on primary sources; unfortunately for area scholars, this means that a substantial amount of foreign language skill is simply the price of entry into substantive research. We were particularly cautioned to avoid confusing individual conversations with substantive qualitative research; one of Dr. Medeiros’ refrains was “the plural of anecdotes is not evidence.” Even once research has been performed well and quality data is acquired, a scholar must still be careful about the policy recommendation they make. While a single, comprehensive solution may exist in theory for a particular policy issue, practical considerations such as economic cost, political capital, or ideology can often render such options useless. Relationships with people actively engaged in governing are particularly important to this aspect of research; such “insiders” are best positioned to help a scholar determine what sort of policy is implementable. If a scholar can offer a realistic recommendation, backed by solid research, they are best positioned to offer utility in the policymaking arena. Dr. Medeiros further cautioned that while influencing policy debate is the goal of the think tank world, such influence is moderate and indirect at best. Every once in a while, a well-regarded scholar in the right place, at the right time, with the right expertise can provide a single nudge that steers policymakers in a particular direction, but it is rarely as simple as a straight line from a report’s recommendations to a new government policy. However, Dr. Medeiros asserted that where think tanks excel is in dissecting an issue, separating the many and varied strands that compose it, and, by providing a more nuanced view, redefining the way policymakers debate the issue. He concluded the talk by taking questions from the class, ranging from issues with the TPP to the utility of collaborative research.
|
麦艾文博士针对如何在美国式的智库环境中做好研究给出了宝贵建议，毕竟美国式的智库是他最为了解、亲身经历的一类智库。他强调了从事有意义的研究的三大要点：高质量的研究课题、高质量的研究过程、高质量的政策建议。
在选择研究课题时，我们必须注意研究该课题一定要能带来新的知识。研究者如能事先清楚课题背景以及相关历史研究，便能更好地确定哪些课题是以往鲜有研究的，以防重复前人的研究。同时，研究者必须知悉当前政策层面的具体动向，这样才能得出满足政策制定者需要的研究。为了做好第二点，同政府的良好关系和交流就至关重要。 研究者如何具体展开研究是研究是否实用的关键。毕竟，如果一项研究不严格按照学术规范实行，其结果必然不准确，更谈不上具有政策性价值。学术规范不意味着量化研究，也不意味着定量分析就优于定性研究。具体的政策问题决定具体的研究方法。研究者视情况可以采用案例分析和控制变量的比较分析完成有价值的定性研究。这类研究若是基于一手资料则更为可靠。有时这意味着对于研究某一地区的研究者，足够的外语能力是资料收集的前提。麦艾文博士还提请同学们注意定性研究不是简单的采集人物对话，所谓“单单罗列逸闻趣事不能作为证据”。 即使研究过程精彩、数据资料齐全，研究者还要对政策建议多下功夫。理论上存在的完美方案可能没有考虑到经费、政治资本、意识形态等等。这些实际因素很可能使得完美的理论失去实际作用。与政策制定领域的相关人士建立联系，从而了解何种政策可行，这一点十分重要。一个最理想的研究者既能提出现实的方案，同时又有扎实的研究作为后盾。 最后，麦艾文博士提醒大家，虽然智库的目标都是影响政策制定，然而其实际影响力是间接而不明显的。只有当万事俱备：有名的学者、特定的场合、适当的时机、对口的研究领域，可能才能推动政策向某方向发展。整个过程绝非如想象般简单直接。当然，麦艾文博士坚信，智库的长处在于将问题细化，提供政策制定者对某一问题更细致的理解，从而改变他们对于某一问题的看法。演讲结束后，麦艾文博士还热情回答了同学的提问，涉及TPP等政策问题以及关于研究方法的具体疑问。
|
0 Comments