A Gap in the Bridge

Editor’s Note: New government employees with Ph.D.s often enter public service with big ambitions but few skills for doing the actual work of government. A. Bradley Potter of Johns Hopkins SAIS, Nate Allen of Stellenbosch University, and Torrey Taussig of the Atlantic Council—all Ph.Ds—offer tips for graduate students interested in developing the skills necessary to be effective government officials.

Daniel Byman

***

Efforts to span the divide between international affairs scholars and policymakers have made progress in recent years. A host of initiatives, from broad fora like Bridging the Gap to specialized offerings like those from the Project on Nuclear Issues, have been introduced. These programs perform valuable functions, training scholars on skills like briefing, drafting op-eds, and selecting policy-relevant research questions. They also cultivate relationships among scholars, practitioners, and those straddling both worlds. But as graduates of policy-oriented Ph.D. programs who have pursued varied careers in U.S. foreign and defense policy, we still see missing planks in the bridge connecting scholars and policymakers.

By training researchers to engage with policy from the outside, supplemental programs and fellowships have addressed only part of the divide between the academic and policy worlds. Once in government, researchers often remain underprepared to do actual policy work. Such work requires a team-oriented mentality, an ability to manage and mobilize people, and a mastery of bureaucratic and organizational process, among other skills seldom developed in graduate school. Nonetheless, the substantive expertise researchers enjoy can help improve policymaking.

Consequently, researchers in disciplines touching on international affairs who embrace the possibilities of public service must do more to cultivate the tools essential to success in the policy world. They need an approach for serving in government at the appropriate points of their careers that leverages their specialized skills in a wholly new context than that in which they were developed or intended to be used. To outline such an approach, this essay draws on our collective years of working in and with government and many conversations with colleagues navigating these matters.

Building a Sturdier Bridge

A Ph.D. is not necessary for policy work, but (as we have argued before) a doctorate can be useful for certain public service careers. Broadly speaking, the advanced historical, theoretical, and methodological training Ph.D.s enjoy can meaningfully add to the expertise that career practitioners already bring to government.

Specific benefits stand out. For instance, researchers are well-positioned to place policy debates within longer traditions, engage in applied history to strengthen policy design and implementation, and identify potential alternative courses of action with deep intellectual roots. More broadly, they have insights into how and why past policies may have failed or the problems associated with enduring assumptions poorly supported by empirical evidence. Researchers are also well-placed to encourage careful thinking about why particular policy interventions might (or might not) lead to desirable outcomes.

And many are already serving. According to the Office of Personnel Management, 8.4 percent of career employees in the foreign affairs occupational series already hold Ph.D.s, and additional researchers hold term-limited and other temporary subject-matter expert (SME) positions. Academic institutions interested in nurturing policy-relevant campus communities should make more room for their researchers to engage with opportunities that exist during and after graduate school to cultivate policy experience, including policy-oriented apprenticeships.

When to Serve

As Jim Goldgeier and Tamara Cofman Wittes observe, nonacademic and policy careers cannot be viewed as a “second-best” option to academic positions. Policy jobs do not simply “happen” if academic careers do not work out. During graduate school, it may be worthwhile for junior scholars to test the waters through an internship during summers between comprehensive exams or a temporary position in a program like the RAND Summer Associateship. Alternatively, if a university has former policymakers among its faculty ranks, working for these individuals as a teaching or research assistant offers at least some insights into the kind of personalities, cultures, and questions that motivate the policy world. These types of jobs can also help open doors later.

Once finished schooling, a sense for career preferences and timing will inform Ph.D.s’ best options for policy careers.

One pathway is to directly enter government service as a federal employee to help inform, make, and implement policy. While the Presidential Management Fellowship ended recently, some replacement may yet arise, and Ph.D.s can still directly enter government through USAJobs (especially where direct hiring authority exists), the Foreign Service Officer Exam, and special intelligence community hiring authorities. This approach most directly opens the opportunity to stay in government working on policy issues indefinitely.

Alternatively, if a prospective policymaker hopes to focus on research to analyze policy or teaching to educate policy professionals, working in Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) or as Professional Military Education (PME) faculty may be a good fit. One benefit of these routes is that via Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) agreements, individuals from FFRDCs and PME institutions may serve directly in government policy-oriented roles for a limited period, working alongside career officials.

Finally, for Ph.D.s who go the academic route first, other options open later. Common ones include Schedule B SME appointments and the Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellowship. Other specialty fellowships are also entry points, especially for researchers with a STEM interest or background. Developing relationships with elected leaders and their advisers can also land temporary Schedule C political appointments, though these are relatively rare and difficult to secure.

In the end, there is no single “right way” for Ph.D.s to enter government. Each finds their own, sometimes circuitous, way ahead.

An Approach to Ph.D.s Engaging With Policymaking

Ph.D.s early in their careers who choose to enter government will most likely find themselves serving in junior- and mid-level policy roles. When they do, a thoughtful approach to service often determines success. Some traits making up this approach are universally valuable to anyone engaged with policy, while others are more specific to those transitioning from academia. Regardless, Ph.D.s aspiring to public service would do well to cultivate them.

Foremost, foreign and defense policy requires teamwork. Academics tend to work on their own, take months and even years to refine their thinking, and are highly incentivized to take maximal credit for what they write. Most policy products, by contrast, are developed collectively, under strict timelines, and rarely feature author names, instead advancing policy or enabling senior policymakers to press national interests. Success in this process demands humility, active listening, pitching in on tedious tasks, and learning from experienced teammates with deep knowledge of bureaucratic processes.

Second, mastering bureaucratic processes is invaluable. Over time, career public servants develop detailed policy knowledge difficult or impossible to obtain from the outside. They become steeped in the sometimes nuanced legal, organizational, and technical processes that govern work within and across departments and agencies. The most effective novice practitioners, regardless of educational background, learn from these veterans. Successful newcomers quickly come to understand how, when, and by whom decisions are made in the bureaucracy and adapt to senior government leaders’ tendencies and priorities. They also become experts in “formal and informal routines,” especially focused note-taking, effective back briefing and reporting, skillful team convening, and thoughtful dispute resolution. For getting day-to-day policymaking done, developing this expertise is practically more valuable than doctoral training. It must be bolted onto the substantive and methodological knowledge that researchers bring.

Related to teamwork is versatility, or a willingness to shift roles, tasks, and levels of responsibility as circumstances demand. Ph.D.s serving in junior- and mid-level roles may advise on policy substance, but they more frequently implement. That looks different every day and is a far cry from self-directed research or mentoring graduate students. Ph.D.s in government need to be ready to serve as a staffer. The most junior person in a meeting? Notes are on you. A visiting delegation needs escorts? Get ready to host and walk people to the bathroom. Leadership wants two pages on a complex issue with a deep history? Start drafting—and do it fast. Staffing is a job with some exciting aspects, but it is often a lot of office work, sometimes under intense time pressure with long hours driven by world events. This reality makes versatility essential.

Fourth, effective Ph.D.s in government should also learn the different cultures of lifelong public servants, especially their hierarchies, incentives, and career paths. These are different from academia and help explain bureaucratic behavior and policymaking trends. Career military officers, foreign service officers, civil servants, and many more are professionals with their own distinct jargon, norms, and traits. Learning the strengths and weaknesses of these communities, their training, and how they work with one another and within the wider government will help a Ph.D. quickly fit in and find opportunities to add value.

Perhaps most importantly, underpinning any researcher entering government service must be a commitment to the value of scholar-practitioners. Practically, this means an abiding belief that policy can be improved when researchers are part of the broader international affairs professional space. This commitment is especially important given that Ph.D.s are often viewed with a combination of skepticism and interest in government. For many practitioners, nothing is a substitute for time in the field doing the work, whether in the offices of Washington, at embassies or combatant commands around the world, or however “on the ground” manifests for a particular organization. But career practitioners will also be curious to learn what a researcher can offer their organization. In this contested environment, Ph.D.s should have confidence that they have something to contribute in dedicating time, if not their careers, to the policy arena.