Yesteday, Thomas Juneau and Philippe Lagassé posted a piece discussing the benefits and possibilities of academics working in the policy sphere (it does not happen much in Canada) and policy-makers spending time in academia. I indicated that such an experience, my year in the Pentagon, via the Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellowship (designed for this explicit purpose) was career and life changing. For the better.
How so? First, it altered my research agenda. I started asking questions about NATO because I sat at the Bosnia desk for a year, watching the alliance at work. This then led, because most decisions are made by NATO members more than the alliance itself, to my focusing on comparative civil-military relations. Which is where I still am. I am also working on a belated project on the bureaucratic politics of the US national security process, which came directly from the stuff I observed in 2001-2002. Second, the year in the policy world almost certainly led to the last two jobs. The two final candidates for the McGill Canada Research Chair position in 2002 both had CFR IAF experiences. Probably not an accident. I am sure having policy experience was important for getting a job at a policy school ten years later. Third, it changed my teaching. I not only teach civ-mil relations, but I use the stuff I learned in that one year in my classes all the time. My students are most practiced at eyerolling to my constant references to "my year in the Pentagon." I have not only specific stories about the year but learned far more about the processes that operate, the role of personalities, and the intricacies of how the US military operates. It was a brief but very intense experience. Fourth, it increased my desire to foster engagement between academics and ... everyone else--the public, the policy world, and so on.
But if I had not had that experience, what would have happened to me and my career? Well, I might not have gotten the McGill job, which means I would not be Canadian now. I might still be in Texas, as opportunities to change from one tenured job to another are not that abundant and I don't always interview well. The McG interview was one of the best ones in my career. Maybe I would have ended up somewhere else, but the job market is not nearly as predictable as the tides. So, I don't really know. I do know that I probably would not have shifted from the International Relations of Ethnic Conflict to Alliances and Civil-Military Relations. I certainly would not have had as much access to grant money, so I would not have engaged in such ambitious projects as comparing 15 or so democracies and how their legislatures oversee (or not) their militaries. I would not have spent about half dozen years building a grant to fund a Canadian defence and security network. I would not have had as many PhD students as there were few at TTU interested in working with me. So, I would be much poorer with a much smaller TeamSteve. And I would not have lived in Ottawa or Montreal, which means fewer friends, less ultimate, and less Canada in my life.
Looking back, I realize that every step along the way has helped me get to where I am (even as I was unhappy and eager to move a few times across my career) and where I am is a pretty cool place. I love the place I work, I love the work I am doing, I really appreciate the friends I have made in the Pentagon, Montreal, and Ottawa.
So, yeah, if I had not gone to DC for that one amazing, intense, enlightening, exhausting year, I would be worse off. I can't recommend enough that academics pursue the rare opportunities to get into the policy world. It might be as amazing for them as it has been for me. It may not be as life and career changing, but who knows?
No comments:
Post a Comment