*edit 3: After reading more on Epistemic Communities, I think I’m back where I started. *edit 4: I am questioning, now, whether I need a framework of how experts influence policymaking at all … Maybe I should conceptualize my actors more broadly but narrow the topic to, say, the use of evidence in narratives?
I really appreciate your response, Ian! I think it makes sense that the more convoluted status of the first debate would make it a more valuable question to investigate.
My hesitation was not worded accessibly or clearly—it was too grounded in the specific frameworks I’m struggling to apply—so let me reword: it doesn’t seem accurate to claim that there was one expert consensus (i.e. primarily pro-/anti-waiver). Given that, I am not sure a) how to break down the category of ‘expert’ - although you provide one suggestion, which is helpful—and b) how strongly I can justify focusing on experts, given that there isn’t a clear divide between “what experts think” and “what non-experts think.”
Non-TL;DR:
My main concern with investigating the debate around the TRIPS waiver is that there doesn’t seem to be a clear expert consensus. I’m not even sure there’s a clear EA-aligned consensus, although the few EAs I saw speak on this (e.g. Rob Wiblin) seemed to favor donating over waiving IP (which seems like a common argument from Europe). Given that, I question
the validity of investigating ‘expert narratives’ because ‘experts’ didn’t really agree there
However, I don’t know if it would be in/valid (per the theories I want to draw from, e.g. Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) or Epistemic Communities), so that would be one of my next steps.
This particular description worries me: “Advocacy coalitions are all those defined by political actors who share certain ideas and who coordinate among themselves in a functional way to suggest specific issues to the government and influence in the decision-making process.”
This would be subverted by your suggestion, though, as I note in point 3!
the validity of investigating expert narratives specifically instead of the general public—if experts didn’t coalesce around a specific stance, what’s my justification for investigating them specifically instead of getting a sense of the public generally? ACF explicitly notes that “common belief systems bind members of a coalition together.” Given that the pro-/anti-waiver coalitions are defined by common beliefs held by both experts and non-experts (e.g. pro-free-market), how can I justify exclusively focusing on experts?
This is probably not a valid concern, now that I think about it. After all, my thesis hinges upon the idea that experts help inform policymakers + policymaking, so it makes sense to focus on their narratives rather than looking at the public as a whole...
However, it seems like focusing exclusively on two expert groups is valid at least within the Epistemic Community framework, so perhaps this would work if it turns out that certain kinds of experts advocated for the same stance.
whom I should focus on—without being able to lump all experts together, how should I break them down?
Perhaps I could subdivide experts into coalitions—e.g. experts for the waiver and experts against the waiver? (This is akin to the fault lines you mention)
I still feel kind of iffy about investigating experts specifically here, instead of the general public, particularly because I could use the same coalitional divide (pro-/anti-waiver)
Or should I focus on EA-aligned experts specifically?
But I don’t know how to justify this… It doesn’t seem like the smartest research practice
Suggestion: use an expert lens, but make the division you’re looking at [experts connected to/with influence in the Biden administration] vs. [“outside” experts].
Rationale: The Biden administration thinks of and presents itself to the public as technocratic and guided by science, but as with any administration politics and access play a role as well. As you noted, the Biden administration did a clear about-face on this despite a lack of a clear consensus from experts in the public sphere. So why did that happen, and what role did expert influence play in driving it? Put another way, which experts was the administration listening to, and what does that suggest for how experts might be able to make change during the Biden administration’s tenure?
Hmm! Yes, that’s interesting—and aligns with the fact that many different policy influencers weighed in, ranging from former to current policymakers. Thank you very much for this!
I think something I’m worried about is how I can conceptualize [inside experts] vs. [outside experts] … It seems like a potentially arbitrary divide and/or a very complex undertaking given the lack of transparency into the policy process (i.e. who actually wields influence and access to Biden and Katherine Tai, on this specific issue?).
It also complicates the investigation by adding in the element of access as a factor, rather than purely thinking about narrative strategies—and I very much want to focus on narratives. On one hand, I think that could be interesting—e.g. looking at narrative strategies across levels of access. On the other, I’m uncertain that looking at narrative strategies would add much compared to just analyzing the stances of actors within the sphere of influence.
What do you think of this alternate RQ: “How did pro/anti-waiver coalitions use evidence in their narratives?”
Moves away from the focus on experts but still gets to the scientific/epistemic component.
(I’m also wondering whether I am being overly concerned with theoretically justifying things!)
(I’m also wondering whether I am being overly concerned with theoretically justifying things!)
I think I would agree with this. It seems like you’re trying to demonstrate your knowledge of a particular framework or set of frameworks through this exercise and you’re letting that constrain your choices a lot. Maybe that will be a good choice if you’re definitely going into academia as a political scientist after this, but otherwise, I would structure the approach around how research happens most naturally in the real world, which is that you have a research question that would have concrete practical value if it were answered, and then you set out to answer it using whatever combination of theories and methods makes sense for the question.
*edit 3: After reading more on Epistemic Communities, I think I’m back where I started.
*edit 4: I am questioning, now, whether I need a framework of how experts influence policymaking at all … Maybe I should conceptualize my actors more broadly but narrow the topic to, say, the use of evidence in narratives?
I really appreciate your response, Ian! I think it makes sense that the more convoluted status of the first debate would make it a more valuable question to investigate.
My hesitation was not worded accessibly or clearly—it was too grounded in the specific frameworks I’m struggling to apply—so let me reword: it doesn’t seem accurate to claim that there was one expert consensus (i.e. primarily pro-/anti-waiver). Given that, I am not sure a) how to break down the category of ‘expert’ - although you provide one suggestion, which is helpful—and b) how strongly I can justify focusing on experts, given that there isn’t a clear divide between “what experts think” and “what non-experts think.”
Non-TL;DR:
My main concern with investigating the debate around the TRIPS waiver is that there doesn’t seem to be a clear expert consensus. I’m not even sure there’s a clear EA-aligned consensus, although the few EAs I saw speak on this (e.g. Rob Wiblin) seemed to favor donating over waiving IP (which seems like a common argument from Europe). Given that, I question
the validity of investigating ‘expert narratives’ because ‘experts’ didn’t really agree there
However, I don’t know if it would be in/valid (per the theories I want to draw from, e.g. Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) or Epistemic Communities), so that would be one of my next steps.
This particular description worries me: “Advocacy coalitions are all those defined by political actors who share certain ideas and who coordinate among themselves in a functional way to suggest specific issues to the government and influence in the decision-making process.”
This would be subverted by your suggestion, though, as I note in point 3!
the validity of investigating expert narratives specifically instead of the general public—if experts didn’t coalesce around a specific stance, what’s my justification for investigating them specifically instead of getting a sense of the public generally? ACF explicitly notes that “common belief systems bind members of a coalition together.” Given that the pro-/anti-waiver coalitions are defined by common beliefs held by both experts and non-experts (e.g. pro-free-market), how can I justify exclusively focusing on experts?
This is probably not a valid concern, now that I think about it. After all, my thesis hinges upon the idea that experts help inform policymakers + policymaking, so it makes sense to focus on their narratives rather than looking at the public as a whole...
However, it seems like focusing exclusively on two expert groups is valid at least within the Epistemic Community framework, so perhaps this would work if it turns out that certain kinds of experts advocated for the same stance.
whom I should focus on—without being able to lump all experts together, how should I break them down?
Perhaps I could subdivide experts into coalitions—e.g. experts for the waiver and experts against the waiver? (This is akin to the fault lines you mention)
I still feel kind of iffy about investigating experts specifically here, instead of the general public, particularly because I could use the same coalitional divide (pro-/anti-waiver)
Or should I focus on EA-aligned experts specifically?
But I don’t know how to justify this… It doesn’t seem like the smartest research practice
Suggestion: use an expert lens, but make the division you’re looking at [experts connected to/with influence in the Biden administration] vs. [“outside” experts].
Rationale: The Biden administration thinks of and presents itself to the public as technocratic and guided by science, but as with any administration politics and access play a role as well. As you noted, the Biden administration did a clear about-face on this despite a lack of a clear consensus from experts in the public sphere. So why did that happen, and what role did expert influence play in driving it? Put another way, which experts was the administration listening to, and what does that suggest for how experts might be able to make change during the Biden administration’s tenure?
Hmm! Yes, that’s interesting—and aligns with the fact that many different policy influencers weighed in, ranging from former to current policymakers. Thank you very much for this!
I think something I’m worried about is how I can conceptualize [inside experts] vs. [outside experts] … It seems like a potentially arbitrary divide and/or a very complex undertaking given the lack of transparency into the policy process (i.e. who actually wields influence and access to Biden and Katherine Tai, on this specific issue?).
It also complicates the investigation by adding in the element of access as a factor, rather than purely thinking about narrative strategies—and I very much want to focus on narratives. On one hand, I think that could be interesting—e.g. looking at narrative strategies across levels of access. On the other, I’m uncertain that looking at narrative strategies would add much compared to just analyzing the stances of actors within the sphere of influence.
What do you think of this alternate RQ: “How did pro/anti-waiver coalitions use evidence in their narratives?”
Moves away from the focus on experts but still gets to the scientific/epistemic component.
(I’m also wondering whether I am being overly concerned with theoretically justifying things!)
I think I would agree with this. It seems like you’re trying to demonstrate your knowledge of a particular framework or set of frameworks through this exercise and you’re letting that constrain your choices a lot. Maybe that will be a good choice if you’re definitely going into academia as a political scientist after this, but otherwise, I would structure the approach around how research happens most naturally in the real world, which is that you have a research question that would have concrete practical value if it were answered, and then you set out to answer it using whatever combination of theories and methods makes sense for the question.
Thanks! I’ll take a break from thinking about the theory—ironically, I am fairly confident I don’t want to go into academia.
Again, appreciate your thoughts on this. Hope I’ll hear from you again if I post another Shortform about my thesis!