6.6.2 Take into account responses

The points so far have addressed what might be called rational responses to policy discussions, but of course, it is also equally important to consider the more emotional and personal responses. We cannot overstate two points here: the importance of informal and personal relationships in making advocacy happen, and the importance of taking account of how your audiences will respond to your proposals based on what you know of their personalities and affiliations.¹

At a recent small policy conference, the discussion was dominated by the personal animosity between two of the lead attendees, one the head of a think tank who regularly takes the government to court when they do not deliver on freedom of information requests in the required time, the other the head of the government agency with the responsibility to deliver on such requests. This was a discussion where rational input or evidence seemed not to matter at all and personal challenges ruled, even though the session opened with a presentation of new research on the area. In this case, the official took the continual flow of strategic litigation and public criticism as a personal threat, rather than as the basis to improve on the delivery of the policy. This is not to say that such whistle-blowing tactics do not work, but they certainly do not make a strong basis for collaborative interaction and this is something that advocates will have to deal with even after a court decision delivers a victory.

Predicting with any certainty the level of emotional response is difficult, but in order not to add fuel to the personal response fire, the European Stability Initiative researchers have a simple rule of thumb: “Don’t ever make ad hominem attacks.” Simply put, avoid attacking the people involved or their personal style or approach: this will undoubtedly bring the kind of negative response and detrimental effects on discussions that policy researchers are not normally interested in provoking. However, this is easier said than done in an environment where few people are able to differentiate a professional challenge from a personal attack. The advice we give then is to avoid unintentionally making things worse by adding personal attacks into the argument.