Left out of the Room Where it Happens
Barriers to Serving in Senior Congressional Staff Roles May Limit “Representative” Science Policymaking
In science, we begin with questions. And sometimes, in the quest to find answers, we pivot in unexpected directions.
During my research to explore how senior congressional staffers value and prioritize science-related policy information, I prepared a series of open-ended interview questions about staff experiences and interests. I also asked where staffers would seek out information related to topics like GMOs, climate change, and PFAS. The main focus - and first chapter - of my dissertation is all about that.
However, during these interviews, another topic kept coming up that I hadn’t been considering…
Over and over, I listened to participants across the political spectrum describe unique challenges to working on Capitol Hill due to the high cost of living and poor financial compensation, particularly early in their careers.
The subject emerged so frequently in conversations that it became another significant theme in my research. I began to explore what we know about the backgrounds and experiences of people serving in senior congressional roles. And I also dove into literature on representation in policy making.
Nearly 60 years ago, Hanna Pitkin argued that we are challenged to construct institutions and train individuals in ways that promote a genuine representation of the public. I thought about her work as many staffers noted how the individuals who ultimately achieve elite decision making roles in Congress are largely those who can afford to stay and participate.
Multiple analyses indicate a lack of diversity among staffers in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, particularly in senior roles. While it is not possible to determine the exact percentages of congressional staffers serving in these elite positions by socioeconomic status or race, the data available indicate that many staffers feel constrained by the high expense of D.C. and low pay.
As I describe in the first publication from this work:
Financial constraints to living in Washington, D.C. likely define and reinforce the community of people able to stay long enough to achieve senior positions, leading to a policy-making community distinct from the American public.
Given life histories shape human attitudes and decisions, I considered how staff identities might influence policy outcomes.
Misperceptions and blind spots among senior staffers may occur, in part, because their lived experiences primarily reflect those from communities with the resources required to maintain influential staff roles.
A lack of opportunities for some communities to participate in policymaking spaces could lead to inadequate representation in terms of decision-making.
Turning to decision science, how might this play out? Conscious and unconscious bias could lead to legislative outcomes that do not ultimately reflect the true interests of the American public.
That may sound discouraging, but these findings also highlight ways to implement policies that could foster a more diverse senior staff community and improve representative policymaking by helping congressional offices to better see and serve all constituents.
The full article is freely available to read at the Journal of Science Policy & Governance.
