Although centralized control of messaging has been a growing feature of federal governments – indeed, governments in many democracies – nothing in Canada has come close to the attention, time and effort the Harper government puts into managing and manipulating information and image-making.
Bee swarm
I recently participated in a panel discussion at the University of Toronto on the career transition from academic research to public service. I really enjoyed the discussion and there were many great questions from the audience. Here’s just a brief summary of some of the main points I tried to make about the differences between academics and public service.
The major difference I’ve experienced involves a trade-off between control and influence.
As a grad student and post-doctoral researcher I had almost complete control over my work. I could decide what was interesting, how to pursue questions, who to talk to, and when to work on specific components of my research. I believe that I made some important contributions to my field of study. But, to be honest, this work had very little influence beyond a small group of colleagues who are also interested in the evolution of floral form.
Now I want to be clear about this: in no way should this be interpreted to mean that scientific research is not important. This is how scientific progress is made – many scientists working on particular, specific questions that are aggregated into general knowledge. This work is important and deserves support. Plus, it was incredibly interesting and rewarding.
However, the comparison of the influence of my academic research with my work on infrastructure policy is revealing. Roads, bridges, transit, hospitals, schools, courthouses, and jails all have significant impacts on the day-to-day experience of millions of people. Every day I am involved in decisions that determine where, when, and how the government will invest scarce resources into these important services.
Of course, this is where the control-influence trade-off kicks in. As an individual public servant, I have very little control over these decisions or how my work will be used. Almost everything I do involves medium-sized teams with members from many departments and ministries. This requires extensive collaboration, often under very tight time constraints with high profile outcomes.
For example, in my first week as a public servant I started a year-long process to integrate and enhance decision-making processes across 20 ministries and 2 agencies. The project team included engineers, policy analysts, accountants, lawyers, economists, and external consultants from all of the major government sectors. The (rather long) document produced by this process is now used to inform every infrastructure decision made by the province.
Governments contend with really interesting and complicated problems that no one else can or will consider. Businesses generally take on the easy and profitable issues, while NGOs are able to focus on specific aspects of issues. Consequently, working on government policy provides a seemingly endless supply of challenges and puzzles to solve, or at least mitigate. I find this very rewarding.
None of this is to suggest that either option is better than the other. I’ve been lucky to have had two very interesting careers so far, which have been at the opposite ends of this control-influence trade-off. Nonetheless, my experience suggests that an actual academic career is incredibly challenging to obtain and may require significant compromises. Public service can offer many of the same intellectual challenges with better job prospects and work-life balance. But, you need to be comfortable with the diminished control.
Thanks to my colleague Andrew Miller for creating the panel and inviting me to participate. The experience led me to think more clearly about my career choices and I think the panel was helpful to some University of Toronto grad students.
Emma’s new Ariel doll
Snake Oil? The scientific evidence for health supplements
Mother’s Day Brunch
The previous prime minister was called Mr. Dithers because Paul Martin could never make up his mind. Stephen Harper, it seems, can’t stop changing his.
Contraception a part of maternal-health plan, Harper says - The Globe and Mail
In other words, you are starting to matter. From prorogation and ten percenters, to anger over CIDA cuts and changes to the anthem, the grassroots have stirred enough to cause reversals in the government’s political designs. In such a light, the ten percenter victory is perhaps more important than we imagine, as citizens begin the slow process of filling up the public space the Harper government has increasingly vacated. It’s low-level turbulence, to be sure, but it’s a victory nonetheless – even if it’s only ten percent.
via Bathroom breaks could wait during gold-medal match
Good Medicine Magazine – Health vs. Pork: Congress Debates the Farm Bill
Expressing a gold-medal performance in public-sector efficiency by the number 1, the economists scored all other competitor countries as percentages of the first-place finish. With an input rating of 0.75, Canada’s 12th-place finish meant it spent 25 per cent more money than it needed to spend – that it could have attained the same results by spending only 75 per cent of the money it spent. You could put it another way. The Canadian government wasted one dollar for every four dollars it spent.
Input, output: We need a public-sector Olympics - The Globe and Mail
Funny Grandpa
Back to work
Early Spring Stroll
Our Healthy Princess
Meeting Baby Caitlynn
Science is not a cold body of facts, but an organized system of inquiry, discovery, evaluation and learning. Science not only welcomes the correction of errors, its key attribute is that it is self-correcting over time. As new research arises, old hypotheses gain or lose support. While this process never stops, generally accepted conclusions do accumulate, based on the overwhelming weight of evidence. The fact and threat of anthropogenic climate change are clearly among those conclusions.
Your square-jawed hero is, in fact, the scientist - The Globe and Mail
It is time, finally, to learn from our mistakes. While global leaders focused single-mindedly on cutting fossil fuel use by promising to cut carbon emissions, they have failed to invest anywhere enough money into ensuring that alternative technologies are ready to take up the slack. Keep in mind that global energy demand will double by 2050. Based on our current progress, it is clear that alternative technologies will not be ready to play a significant role.
Welcome to the fun house, friends. The 21st century is going to be the most dangerous and the most complicated (and the most exciting and dynamic) century in the history of the human race. The politics of science are going to get more complicated, more confusing and more contentious — even as the political impact of scientific findings looms ever larger in our lives.
Why Climate Science Is On Trial - Walter Russell Mead’s Blog - The American Interest