What Not to Worry About in the Policy–Academy Gap Debate: A Contrarian Take

Abstract

This assessment of the “policy-academy” gap is part of a special forum stimulated by Michael Desch’s book, Cult of the Irrelevant. Those who write about the academy–policy gap worry that the gap is too narrow, resulting in ethical compromise, or too wide, resulting in marginalization of key academic voices. I argue both concerns are overdrawn. In particular, I argue that there is a healthy exchange between academic specialists and the policy community, at least as healthy as any during a mythical golden era. Moreover, quantitative methods are not a bogeyman exacerbating the gap; high-quality quantitative scholarship can make important contributions. Finally, claims that academic realists face unfair disadvantages in contributing to policy are not well-supported by the evidence. In truth, there is a fairly healthy marketplace of ideas in the policy community, at least as healthy as what prevails in the academy.