Over the day, I kept going back to this and had a few thoughts. Coming into the social sciences, especially in grad school, I've often heard that we have to think about policy-relevant research. Being a bit of a theory nerd, I sat around peers who often criticized research - 1/n https://twitter.com/MilliLake/status/1346462189029359618

that didn't seem "valuable to policy". In class it was almost taboo to rigorously question the basis of this knowledge and what's considered the norm in policy-making. I've been told "well that's the way it is now so we have to work with what we have." 2/n

But in my previous environment we did question some of the basis so the adjustment really took a while. Especially the decision to not adjust. The decision to do more grad school was to keep on asking these questions even if I was the only one in the classroom doing so. 3/n

I've only had very brief exposures to the policy world so I'm no expert but even from that I knew there was a formula to being there and doing that work. I am not sure I want to follow that exact formula. 4/n

Info was valuable when it didn't push buttons or could be used for specific strategic means. I could see policy-relevance, sure. But also: which policy? Who's making this policy and for whom? How unfair that something only be relevant if it suited the status quo? 5/n

And with all this I realised that the research I wanted to do had to be socially-relevant and not policy-relevant per say. I don't care if my research isn't relevant for policymakers but I care that it is relevant to decimating the inequalities we live and reiterate. 6/6