Why hands-on-keyboard technologists are needed at the public policy table
A Q&A with Evagelia (Emily) Tavoulareas
Q: Please tell us about your work at the Georgetown Initiative on Tech and Society.
A: Technology touches every part of society. It presents opportunities and challenges that are inherently interdisciplinary—they cannot be understood or managed with a single perspective, skillset, or discipline. That is where Tech & Society comes in. You can think of it as a force of gravity on campus, pulling people out of their research centers and departments and into new spaces that are examining the big questions of the day through multiple lenses, not just one. Much of my time is spent understanding what scholars across our centers are exploring, identifying the places where they intersect with others—the overlaps in the Venn diagram—and creating opportunities to do things in that overlapping space: convene, discuss, research, publish, teach, etc. It’s really fun and endlessly interesting.
Q: What are the ingredients for successful collaboration between tech and government?
A: I wish there was an easy list, but I’ll try to give you a tangible answer.
Evagelia (Emily) Tavoulareas
First, let me say that it depends on what kind of technology we are talking about, so I’m going to go with my area of expertise, digital technology.
With that in mind, a foundational need is to recognize and accept that the question is no longer *if* their technology will be used in a manner that creates risk/harm—the question is *how/when/by whom.* And that companies bear some responsibility for the impact of their product. If they want to celebrate the positive outcomes, they must also take ownership of the negative ones. More specifically:
A shared goal of technology, at minimum, is not harming the public.
Transparent and candid communication about risks, needs, and emerging questions.
A willingness to point to ambiguity and work through it collectively.
A collective understanding that we are in entirely new territory here, and that existing models for collaboration may provide inspiration, but digital is fundamentally different than the technologies of the past century and necessitate a different approach—one industry and government may need to create together.
The truth is we just don’t know because we are dealing with a technology that is in someways incompatible with our current processes, frameworks, and institutions. And that requires a good-faith partnership that is open and capable of navigating ambiguity and putting the public interest ahead of politics and profits. It’s tough to imagine, but possible.
Q: We’re also interested in your role as a Research Fellow at the Siegel Family Foundation. What are you learning about different approaches to teaching digital technology in schools of public policy and law? Are most students in these programs from tech backgrounds?
A: First, a quick clarification on the scope of my research. Courses on digital technology in policy and law schools have existed for decades, and I am still trying to wrap my head around the incredible scholarship spanning various fields. What I am focusing on is just one sliver of a much bigger equation: when I say “digital,” I mean “digital product” — meaning understanding / exploring digital as a product, but through a policy lens. My research question evolved to this specific issue:
How might we help people understand enough about digital technology in order to help them achieve the policy outcomes they seek?
Many different people and institutions are focused on solving this problem and creating learning opportunities and programming of various kinds. I have worked in this space for nearly 20 years, and while there is a lot that is still unclear, one of the few things believe strongly in is that there is no single answer to this question. That is precisely why I took on this research. My goal is not to answer the question with a single answer. It is to bring some clarity to the landscape of options and approaches in a way that is useful and (ideally) actionable.
So back to your original question, what am I learning? In short:
There is no single answer, and the most effective approach depends on who you are speaking to, their role, and their experience.
There is a significant gap in knowledge between those creating the technology, those studying technology, and those with their hands on policy levers.
It has been interesting speaking to academics around the world, and I think it’s safe to say that schools of public policy, in particular, are all trying to identify ways to effectively integrate digital into their curricula. I hope my research will be useful in doing so. And if anyone reading this wants to talk further, please reach out!
“There is a significant gap in knowledge between those creating the technology, those studying technology, and those with their hands on policy levers. ”
Q: How important is it that technologists contribute to public policy or government? Why?
A: It is absolutely critical. It is impossible to overstate this. I genuinely do not know how governments—or anyone working in public service—can effectively tap into the upside potential and manage the downside risk and harm of technology (current and emerging) without at least a basic level of understanding. I am not exaggerating when I say that technologists should be at every decision-making table, right next to the lawyers.
And to be clear, when I say “technologist,” I don’t mean someone who knows what Instagram is, or uses TikTok. I also do not mean people who have worked in C-suite roles in business and marketing. I mean people who have had hands-on-keyboard experience designing and/or delivering digital technology that is used by actual humans out in the world. Not to mention the rare scholars who have hands-on-keyboard experience!
Q: What can we in the tech sector do today to help impact positive use of technology in government and positive policy decisions?
A: Be honest, transparent, and genuinely willing to put the public interest ahead of the bottom line.
Q: How will government and policy impact the future of technology and the way we build?
A: In the short term, I think governments all over the world will need to respond to the risks and harms presented by technology. Although at this time, it is hard to envision current efforts having any substantive impact. My hope is governments can find a way to incentivize entirely different behavior at companies.
Q: How will technology impact the way we govern?
A: The honest answer is that we just don’t know because we are dealing with technology that is fundamentally incompatible with our current processes, frameworks, and institutions. More specifically, our current government institutions and processes (in the US) were largely designed and built in the post-WW2 era, in an age of electro-mechanical technology. While the technologies themselves varied tremendously, electro-mechanical technology has finite configurations and is both predictable and testable. Digital technology is none of those things. It’s the opposite, it’s flexible, constantly changing, and abstract.
Think about it this way, we used to be able to think through all the things (electro-mechanical) technology could do and the varying states it could get into. For pretty much any non-digital technology, a few sheets of paper could describe the whole system, and you could run physical tests to see how it would behave. Then once you built and tested it, you knew exactly what you were dealing with, which made it possible to diagnose and solve/manage problems. Software is fundamentally different. In the words of Nancy Leveson, a professor at MIT:
“The problem is that we are attempting to build systems that are beyond our ability to intellectually manage.”
While I believe there are absolutely ways we can improve the institutions and processes and regulatory frameworks we currently have, I also believe that we simultaneously need to reimagine both governance and the approach to product development. How? I’m not quite sure yet, that’s part of why I love my current job!