Making “Lessons Learned” Stick

By: Dan Spokojny | January 24, 2023

I spent the day at a United States Institute of Peace conference called “Peacemaking in a Turbulent World: Lessons Learned in Managing Internal and International Conflicts.” The conference, the second in a set of workshops, included many of the leading scholars in the field.

How many wars could be prevented, and how many lives could be saved, if only we could inject all of this knowledge into the bloodstream of policymaking? Sitting amongst so many extraordinary scholars gave me an opportunity to reflect on what I’ve learned about the ways external expertise can positively impact the policy process.

Here are five observations based upon my study of lessons learned programs.

1. Access to policymakers is necessary but insufficient.

Producing lessons that simply gather dust on a shelf helps nobody. Figuring out how to most effectively deliver knowledge to policymakers is a vital step in the process. A myopic focus merely on access to policymakers may only lead to the cherry-picking of lessons that comply with preexisting assumptions. This can give policymaking the sheen of “evidence-based decision-making” without reaping any of its benefits.

Lessons learned are only impactful when presented in such a manner that encourages policymakers to change their mind when presented with evidence that challenges their assumptions.

2. Apply lessons to relevant decision-making processes.

The most effective lessons learned efforts are harmonized with the relevant decision-making processes. Producing lessons without understanding where they will attach to the policy process is like hunting for buried treasure without a map. The leaders of lessons learned programs must be crystal clear about the organizations, actors, and policy levers to which their lessons will be applied. People who study political violence are taught to carefully study the interests and incentives of the actors involved in the conflict. That same analysis must also be directed to understanding the organizations and actors that develop foreign policy here at home.

3. Prioritize the most impactful lessons.

Policymakers are inundated with torrents of information every day. Most of what they receive is never read. Lessons learned programs, therefore, must ruthlessly focus on the type of knowledge that will be most useful for policymakers. Deciding which issues deserve investment in a lessons learned program is important. A useful heuristic for prioritization is the Importance/Tractability/Neglectedness framework. The highest priority lessons learned programs should be focused on issues that are vital, amenable to reform, and being ignored by other actors.

4. Translate lessons into actionable recommendations.

While the empirical evidence that informs any lessons learned project is inherently historical, policymakers benefit most from recommendations that are forward-looking. Translating an empirical finding into a policy recommendation can be very uncomfortable for academics who specialize in descriptive and explanatory research. At the same time, policymakers do not have the skills necessary to interpret academic evidence and apply it to policy action. Both sides need to do better.

5. Invest in the culture of policymaking.

There are systemic obstacles standing in the way of effective lessons learned programs in foreign policy. Policymakers are taught that their instincts are their best asset – that “diplomacy is an art, not a science.” Those of us who believe in the value of harnessing rigorous evidence must push against these cultural roadblocks. Advocating for specific policy issues draws a great deal of attention and passion, but building the capacity of our institutions to think more scientifically may reap higher rewards in the long run. Ultimately, “lessons” are empty wishes without institutions capable of actually learning and taking action on new information.

We must not let our policymakers off the hook. It is time for policymakers to step up and examine their own role in creating an environment conducive to learning.

Conclusion

Collectively, these observations place a heavy burden on academics and outside experts hoping to play a productive role in the policymaking process. This is a challenge because the incentives for academics to engage with the policy process are weak. Academics’ pathways to promotion are more determined by their research output than their policy engagement. Studying policy-relevant topics is challenging: the academic publishing process moves at glacial speed and rewards looking backward rather than forwards.

These challenges create an opportunity for bridge spanners like USIP and fp21 to help connect policymakers and academics in more effective ways. We must hold policymakers accountable for investing in a culture of evidence, and celebrate those with the courage to innovate. At the same time, we can facilitate academics to engage in more policy-relevant ways.

The reality is that our foreign policy institutions do not have strong mechanisms or norms to invest in rigorous evidence. The most rigorous arguments are typically complicated and subtle. But these make for poor tweets and talking points, and sometimes even threaten good politics. Yet peace, prosperity, and security are too important to be left to the instincts of the same handful of decision-makers.