Here's a conversation I've been having a lot recenetly:
Other Person: What are you doing your thesis on?
Me: I'm looking at intergenerational poverty and health
Other Person: Oh fantastic! What are you doing specifically?
Me: (Thrilled that someone is interested) Well, in my first two papers, I'm studying intergenerational associations between parent and child height, which are strongly associated with an assortment of health and economic outcomes in adulthood, and trying to tease apart the mechanisms enabling these transfers. The main idea is that a notable portion of this appears to be driven by pathways that are amenable to public policy intervention. In the second paper I address this aspect, and study the extent to which these correlations are modulated by public health programs and enviromental shocks.
If the person is still interested, I go on and talk about my nascent model and empirical methodology, which actually is intuitively simple but still geeky and technical. Usually though, the person is not interested: "Oh...ummm...great...hey, I gotta run, talk to you later." (And I haven't even gotten my third paper!)
Recently, I realized that these conversations get to me. In general, I find my project exciting and interesting - otherwise I wouldn't be pursuing it. Every now and then, though, I have these doubts: what if it's NOT that exciting or interesting or (gasp) that important? At those times, some external validation is nice So I chat up my advisors and they seem genuinely excited about my work. So it's all good...right?
To some extent, yes. It's your professors and peers that know your field well, and who have a good sense of what is important and what is not. However, these days health economics (and econ in general) seems to have transcended the realm of nerd-dom into the public conscience. People are avid consumers of economics (see the comments in any Freakonomics post for proof), and I suppose one would want the public to see the value in what he/she does.
I'm not just referring to validation of the sort where one writes a paper on something fun and has it picked up in the New York Times. It's also that many health policy makers are not economists and probably don't read much academic health economics. Many of us came into this field with an eye on figuring stuff out that's helpful to people. So, if outsiders don't see the value in your work or find it disinteresting, perhaps non-economist policy makers might not either. Also, doing a PhD involves life sacrifices and it's a bit of a monastic existence. If what you are spending night and day on is not "important," then what the hell are you doing?
In the event that outsiders are lukewarm about your work, where does that leave you? After countless conversations such as those outlined at the beginning, this is the question I am asking myself. My advisors, other health economists, and I see some value in my work. Few other people I have talked to share that excitement. How am I supposed to feel about that? I think there are four rationalizations:
1) My research might not be policy relevant, but advances the science - I've used this one before, but I don't like it. While any one paper need not be policy relevant, it should help provide information on some theory or behavior where that understanding would be useful in informing policy. I think my dissertation might touch on this, but I'm not sure.
2) My research is designed to show of my technical skills and get me a good job. All policy relevant work will commence after procuring said job - Not bad. However, I am part of the Department of Health POLICY and Administration. What am I projecting if my dissertation has no "policy" in it? I might be good at stats but does my thesis send the signal that I am not imaginative when it comes to policy evaluation?
3) People are slow to come around - Many times, there is a lag between evidence and the recognition of the value of that evidence. So, a nice, perhaps delusional, thought is that my research is important, and others will come around to seeing that.
4) I am doing what I want to do - Perhaps the best of the set. See number 7 in this (excellent) list.
5 comments:
I tend to agree with delusional idea #3:) In my (albeit extremely limited) experience many good scientific ideas are overlooked the first 3-4 times that they are published. Good science will be rewarded ... eventually. Maybe I'm just as delusional ...
maybe its that you are talking to americans who don't care? perhaps lay people in the countries where your research has more impact (or where your data comes from) might care more? or not. non-scientists don't really care about my research, either, but that doesn't mean that someday when they are admitted to the hospital with an infection it won't be my research that finds the culpable pathogen.
#4 with a touch of #3? I also think you don't give enough credit to the incremental nature of research-to-policy transitions, i.e., #1 but your research IS policy relevant, though it shall only impact things as part of an aggregate (unless it's super-unique).
Good points all. Neil and James: indeed, I've given short respect to the true rate of diffusion of ideas. Perhaps I am too impatient! Valli: I recently talked to some non-economists with interest in international health. They were quite interested, as you suspected.
imagine if only two people on earth actually knew and understood your thesis: yourself and your advisor. case in point:
http://yogeshmore80.googlepages.com/thesis.pdf
Post a Comment