Wednesday 25 May 2016

Inserting History in Policy

In my recent "Where Influence Lies" opinion article at History&Policy, I concluded by saying that if History (and by that I mean historical research, thought and approaches) is to truly have an impact on the policy making, it needs to be incorporated into the entire policy process. As it currently stands, we are "talking at", instead of "speaking with", policy makers - an approach that may not exactly be the most influential.

From my experience as a policy analyst in the Canadian government and an departmental historian, the last thing any policy maker wants is someone to come and tell them "what they need to know" but who also doesn't become involved in the policy making process. Policy making is not necessarily a straightforward endeavour and, more often than not, the questions one had at the beginning of the policy process are rarely the ones that are being posed in the drafting of the final product.

For example, the initial policy question may be something such as "why are the education attainment rates of Indigenous Canadians lower than the rest of the population?". Here, a history of government policies relating to Indigenous education is vitally needed. All policy makers need to know the general history of what led to the reality they are facing. In other words, they need that context. Great, you may be saying, I know just the historian for you! But once the issue starts being beaten around the edges and smoothed out into a more concrete approach, the policy makers may realize that their policy is now about funding levels and the impact of a series of government expenditure controls. As they're now at the crunch phase, there's no time to go back to find the right academic historian, so they'll just go with what information they have on file...regardless of the fact that it only goes back as far as the previous administration's policy platforms.

In the end, what purpose did that initial contextual history lesson serve to the policy makers? While they may be better educated on the broad picture, they didn't have running access to the historian when things started to shift (and they ALWAYS shift as no policy document ever resembles the initial concept).

So what exactly am I saying here? That every policy unit needs an historian? Well, ultimately yes...but I know that not going to happen. So what do we need to do?

From where I sit, straddling both the academic History and the policy development worlds, the answers are actually hidden in the policy making process. This process, often been described as being similar to making sausages - no one really wants to know how they're made, is called the policy development cycle. Few people, however, have much of an idea how it works. It's actually pretty straightforward. Here's the basic elements:
  1. Identify/Define the issue
  2. Research the issue 
  3. Analyse the findings 
  4. Develop a policy approach
  5. Implement the approach
  6. Evaluate the approach
  7. start over...

You may look at that list and see "2. Research the issue" and say, well, that's where History fits in! While it definitely does play a role in the research phase, I argue that it also needs to inserted into every single step to the process. Ultimately policy makers need information and it needs to be specifically tailored to meet specific requirements. As many crashed and ill conceived polices can attest, when policy makers don't have that information readily at hand, they may well simply ignore the gap or turn to any other source that may seem to fill the need. My argument is that, to borrow form Alix Green, that the "Historian's toolbox" needs to be widely used as it allows those disposed to historical thinking to approach the different elements of the policy cycle and add significant value that ultimately strengthen analysis.

Over the last several years, I've tried to develop an approach that would insert historical concepts and thinking into the various steps of policy development. So if I were to take the six steps listed, I could start to apply different elements of the Historian's toolbox by asking specific questions and approaches that strengthen the analysis:

1. Identify/Define the issue
  • All issues are based on an historical problem (on one level or another) so be a challenge function: examine the historical underpinning of the policy question - are the core historical assumption sound? If not, what aspects need to be adjusted? Are the policy makers considering all the historical influences? Is this a "historical" straw-man argument?
2. Research the issue
  • Undertake the specific administrative history of the policy issue, then undertake a higher level historical examination to place that history into the broader context of interrelated policy histories. In other words, what is the context, and what's the context for the context of the issue.
3. Analyse the findings
  • Policy analysis often focusses on social science research; we must be willing to participate in an interdisciplinary approach by showing how historical research can fill gaps in the analysis of other fields. For example, can historical evidence explain a sudden and unexplained spike in statistical research? Another approach would use the historical narrative as the foundation for the research of other disciplines.
4. Develop a policy approach
  • Policy documents must tell a "story" to convince policy deciders what to do. At this step, it's all about accuracy of interpretation and insuring that all statements and information of an historical nature are clear and accurate.
5. Implement the approach
  • Unless the policy is of an heritage nature, there's little to do here except sit back and watch it unfold...
6. Evaluate the approach
  • To understand if policy is effective, it needs to be assessed and evaluated. When the results come in, now it's time to start to draw comparisons to past experiences and to see if we can find analogies that can show effectiveness or failure of the policy itself.
This rough outline of an approach needs to be tested and refined. The policy development world is a very sceptical place - while they don't always use evidence to make their policy recommendations, they definitely want it when it comes to changing their ways of doing things. 

I'd also state that the approach presented here requires change and adaptation on both sides: for policy makers to use history throughout the process; but also for historians to become directly involved in the policy process itself. For historians, that means we need to think about how we present our findings, what kind of products we create (and yes, they are most definitely products) and how we craft our message for maximum influence. 

There's lots to talk about here and I hope you'll join in on the conversation.

Monday 7 March 2016

How to Get Them to See the Value of History: Prove it!

Last Friday, Carleton's History Department invited me to discuss my current research (in case you missed it, I'm currently the Public Servant-in-Residence in the History Department and I'm looking into role of historical research in the development of Public Policy).

This was an opportunity for me to layout some of the concepts that I've been mulling over for the past months and to have my colleagues, both faculty and public servants, challenge my thinking. I was looking to do two things though my presentation: 1- present the current landscape on this issue to those who aren't directly connected with it; and 2- seek their collective wisdom as to the ongoing direction of my research. I was very pleased with the depth of the questions posed as they went to straight to the root of my analysis: mainly, how will we convince policy makers to see historical research in the same light as other forms of research. My short answer to that question was that we need to prove that it is useful. 

Fundamentally, my research is currently at a bit of a cross road. As my ultimate goal is to influence how policy is developed in the Canadian Public Service, I've realised that I will never be able to convince my colleagues to consider History (in every possible sense of the term) if I can't prove that it will actually make a difference. Can I show that historical research is useful for policy making? Where are the "real life" examples?

I've been searching the literature for months, trying to get a better understanding of both how policy making is discussed and the role historical research plays in developing policy options (as an aside, my life as a policy analyst in government is leading me to think that those who write about policy development haven't really "done" policy development as the reality of that process is far more messy than they seem to think it is, but that's a whole different blog post...). There are a few things that I've come to notice:
  1. All sorts of different types of research are considered useful for policy making, from statistical to economic to social, but historical research is nearly always absent. Simply put, History is not considered a useful tool in policy development.
  2. Those without an academic historical background writing about the development process do not seem to consider historical research, historical perspective or historical thinking as source material that will allow policy makers to craft better policy options. 
  3. Historians are the ones stating that historical research needs to be included in policy development, not policy makers themselves.
As Francis Gavin states in "Lessons of History - History and Policy": "Policy makers are not interested in the past for its own sake - therefore they are always looking for "usable" knowledge that provides guidance for the future." For her part, Alix Green takes this point even further, in her dissertation Using History in Public Policy Development, by stating that "for history, there's is a clear tension between the kind of contribution it can make - which tends towards destabilizing certainty and generalization and involves interpretation and judgement - and a cultural emphasis on the bureaucratic machine through the application of "what works". Research needs to lead the policy maker towards a future policy option, and if it doesn't, it isn't useful to them. From my perspective and experience, if you can't show that History is usable, either because of its form or its approach, it can't fit into the "what works" model that policy makers must use to develop responsive policies.

As part of my search, I've been trying to identify those examples of "what works". And while I've found lots of discussion around how it "could" or "should" work, I'm still struggling to find actual, on the ground, examples of how it works and most importantly, how it influences the policy process.While organisations such as the History and Policy Network and the National History Center are striving to bring historians into contact with policy makers through a wide range of engagement activities (seminars, workshops, conference talks, training, publications, etc.), I've been struggling to find metrics showing how this engagement has influenced policy making in the end product. While it's an excellent sign that the Historians on the Hill series has political staffers from Congress in attendance, how is that trickling down to the policy makers in federal departments - those who actually write the policy, instead of those who decide the final vote? Or can the History and Policy Network show how its case studies influenced final policy options by pointing to where it made a policy process diverge? The History and Policy Network has an evaluation section on its website but there are unfortunately few details. It would be interesting to know if the 2014 Knowles review it cites undertook a vertical review to see how far down the line the work of the network is reaching into the British civil service.

If we truly believe that there is a role for for History in public policy development, we need to show not only why historical research is useful, but also demonstrate how it can influence in a productive way through "real world" examples. As the Overseas Development Institute states on its ROMA guide to policy engagement and policy influence, one of the fundamental steps in the successful development of public policy is to "Develop a monitoring and learning system". I would argue that we historians calling for greater inclusion of history in policy development have not really bother to undertake this important step. We aren't trying to measure (or quantify) our impact. We appear to be saying "Do this because we know History and it's important". From my experience as a policy maker, telling me that I'm wrong and that you're right, really isn't the best way to influence decisions.

Maybe, it's because we aren't asking the right questions of policy makers. Instead of asking why isn't historical research being used, we may need to ask: Does the inclusion historical research actually lead to better policy options and outcomes? What is the depth of our impact? Are we making a difference? 

Do you know of any evidence to show the impact of history on policy making? Got your own perspective on how History can influence policy making? Let me know! @jp5morin

Thursday 11 February 2016

The Great NCPH Canuck Gathering!

Are you a Canadian Public Historian heading to Baltimore for the NCPH's annual meeting in March 2016? Are you worried about people there simply won't understand your need to say "Sorry!" at the end of every sentence? Or are you worried that you simply won't be able to handle weather that doesn't require 5 layers of clothing and that you'll feel naked? Maybe you're worried that someone will realise that you feel a bit confused by the monochromatic nature of American money?

Well, my Canadian friend, I've got a great suggestion for you as I'd like to inform you of the first (and after this year hopefully annual) Great NPCH Canuck Gathering! Yes, this is an opportunity for you to meet up with some fellow Canadian Public Historians, discuss our impressions of the annual meeting so far, build up your network and discuss the fact that our fantastic American hosts have no idea how to pronounce the word "toque"! 



Now that you're intrigued by the idea of a fascinating conversation on the pronunciation of the word toque, you're obviously asking: I want in, but where will we ever find a safe shelter that will allow us to quench our parched throats? Happy you asked! 

We shall gather at the Pratt Street Ale House (http://www.prattstreetalehouse.com/), just a few blocks away from the Renaissance Baltimore Harborplace Hotel, after the Public Plenary Session (which is from 6 to 7.30 pm on Friday, March 18th) at 8pm. The libation selection looks great as does the food offerings. I'm not sure they'll have poutine on the menu, but it can't hurt to ask them to make some up - maybe we'll start a new Baltimore trend!




So come and join us (and please let me know if you're interested at jp5morin [at] gmail.com). Please note that all non-Canucks are, of course, welcome and encouraged to come and join the party. Everyone needs more Canadians in their lives (but be warned that we may politely make fun of the way you say the word "about" before quickly apologizing).

See you all there, eh!