Imagine the following scenario.

Joe Policymaker does not want to commit to a ground campaign in the region of Bumfuckistan. His preference is to contain the rebel group that has occupied a sizable landmass in Bumfuckistan because political constraints and his (and his cabinet’s) preferences mitigate against invading Bumfuckistan to expel the rebel army. He wants to handle the problem with a combination of air strikes and half-hearted aid to “moderates” and wait out the problem long enough to hand it to his successor.

Along comes Joe Political Scientist, who wants to “bridge the gap” by presenting his “policy relevant” research to Joe Policymaker.

Joe Political Scientist: “Hey Joe Policymaker! How are you doing?”

Joe Policymaker: *grimace* *thinks ‘oh its him again, what does he want now?’*

Joe Political Scientist: “I got some POLICY-RELEVANT research that I know you’re gonna love! It’s relevant to your Bumfuckistan problem, and I even took the trouble of taking all of the math and jargon out of it just for you!”

Joe Policymaker: “Ok, what is it?”

Joe Political Scientist: “So, I see that you’re trying to ‘destroy’ a rebel group almost solely from the air. I ran the numbers and did the case studies, and didja know that ground strategies are more likely to defeat rebel groups than bombing solely from the air? If you don’t believe me I even brought my R code along so you can replicate it!!”

Joe Policymaker slams the door in Joe Political Scientist’s face. The next day, the doorbell rings and its Jane Political Scientist.

Jane Political Scientist: “Hey Joe Policymaker! How are you doing?”

Joe Policymaker: *grimace* *thinks ‘oh its her again, what does she want now?’*

Jane Political Scientist: “I got some POLICY-RELEVANT research that I know you’re gonna love! It’s relevant to your Bumfuckistan problem, and I even took the trouble of taking all of the math and jargon out of it just for you!”

Joe Policymaker: “Ok, what is it?”

Jane Political Scientist: “So, I see that you are trying to handle the Bumfuckistan problem in a way that avoids handing off the problem to your successor. So I did a study about strategies that policymakers in ambigous wars fought from the air can use to avoid passing off — — “

Joe Policymaker slams the door on Jane Political Scientist. He turns to his chief of staff.

Joe Policymaker: “Is there a ‘do not call list’ I can get on so these people will stop bothering me?”

Chief of Staff: “Unfortunately, no. You see, these poor fools have this notion called ‘policy relevance’ and ‘bridging the gap’. They are going to throw all of the research they have produced at us, regardless if it actually helps us with the goal we’re actually trying to pursue.”

Joe Policymaker: “Can’t we just put out an ad on Craigslist saying ‘political scientist wanted to help me avoid a lengthy ground campaign and pass the burden of a complex policy issue to the next president’ or something?”

Chief of Staff: “Well, Mr. President, we can’t actually say that in public even though everyone really knows that’s we’re trying to do — except for those clueless political scientists.”

Joe Policymaker: “Oh, right. Damn. Oh well.”

That, in a nutshell, is the problem. Political scientists have this strange, naive belief that policymakers are just uninterested actors looking for the best advice they can find and if only they could be fed the political science in a form that their unique tribe understands everything would be a-ok. It’s almost as if political scientists — who study the strategic behavior of political actors — throw all of their own research out the window when naively formulating their notions of policy relevance.