Engaging Practitioners with Julia McQuaid

By Megan McBride

We’re “neither fish nor fowl,” said Julia McQuaid, a principal research scientist at CNA, describing the unique place that an FFRDC (a federally funded research and development center) occupies in the national security community. An FFRDC is neither a government agency, nor a for-profit contractor, nor a partisan think tank. Rather, as McQuaid noted, it is an independent entity, located at a nonprofit or a university but administered by a government agency. This structure facilitates access to information, government experts, and high-ranking policymakers while, critically, ensuring by design intellectual independence.

McQuaid, speaking at an Engaging Practitioners lunch on April 11, went on to note that one of the virtues of an FFRDC is that it can house an interdisciplinary group of analysts who have the bandwidth and expertise to tackle issues slightly over the horizon. Government employees are often subject matter experts tasked with keeping the state moving in the right direction and responding to the day’s crisis. As a result, they don’t always have the time or resources to undertake large research projects tackling tomorrow’s concerns. An FFRDC like CNA, by contrast, hires with the explicit goal of cultivating an interdisciplinary workforce that can do precisely this kind of work. As she explained in response to a question: the organization isn’t always necessarily looking for a specific type of expertise—though they do keep their eye on the horizon to ensure they have the right kind of experts in the mix—but is often looking for individuals who are “flexible specialists,” or personnel who have a type of expertise that the team values but is also willing to acquire additional expertise when and where it is necessary.

She then went on to discuss the types of work that come across her desk as a principal research scientist in the Center for Stability and Development at CNA (the FFRDC for the Navy and Marine Corps). She described, as one example, being the project director of a congressionally mandated independent evaluation of “U.S. efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al-Qaeda since 2001.” The evaluation took over a year and began not with a deep dive into classified documents—that came later—but with the important methodological work of deciding how to define “disrupt,” “dismantle,” and “defeat.” The report, she noted, ultimately concluded that the Department of Defense had been somewhat successful in disruption (contributing to the absence of major attacks on U.S. soil), slightly less successful in dismantling (insofar as certain affiliate movements had been temporarily, but not permanently, dismantled), and largely unsuccessful in defeating affiliates or the core leadership.

One of the least expected, but most fascinating, parts of McQuaid’s presentation came in response to a question about how long she was given to complete these large-scale analytic assessments and whether there was really adequate time to tackle complex issues that required a closer look. McQuaid said that attention spans are short, and that there is an increasing demand for shorter turnarounds and shorter final products. External feedback to this effect had resulted in internal discussions about how to adapt, what would be required to do high-quality analysis in 6, rather than 12, months, and how final reports should be written and formatted given scant interest in reading a 250-page assessment. It is not enough, she noted, to simply produce a report; the challenge is to produce a report (or perhaps a series of shorter reports) that is accessible. Even the most impressive conclusions can do little to raise new questions or highlight new issues if no one reads the product. The Center for Strategic Studies at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy thanks Julia McQuaid for her participation in the Engaging Practitioners Series. We look forward to her next visit to Fletcher and the upcoming publications of her team at CNA.

McQuaid, speaking at an Engaging Practitioners lunch on April 11, went on to note that one of the virtues of an FFRDC is that it can house an interdisciplinary group of analysts who have the bandwidth and expertise to tackle issues slightly over the horizon. Government employees are often subject matter experts tasked with keeping the state moving in the right direction and responding to the day’s crisis. As a result, they don’t always have the time or resources to undertake large research projects tackling tomorrow’s concerns. An FFRDC like CNA, by contrast, hires with the explicit goal of cultivating an interdisciplinary workforce that can do precisely this kind of work. As she explained in response to a question: the organization isn’t always necessarily looking for a specific type of expertise—though they do keep their eye on the horizon to ensure they have the right kind of experts in the mix—but is often looking for individuals who are “flexible specialists,” or personnel who have a type of expertise that the team values but is also willing to acquire additional expertise when and where it is necessary.

She then went on to discuss the types of work that come across her desk as a principal research scientist in the Center for Stability and Development at CNA (the FFRDC for the Navy and Marine Corps). She described, as one example, being the project director of a congressionally mandated independent evaluation of “U.S. efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al-Qaeda since 2001.” The evaluation took over a year and began not with a deep dive into classified documents—that came later—but with the important methodological work of deciding how to define “disrupt,” “dismantle,” and “defeat.” The report, she noted, ultimately concluded that the Department of Defense had been somewhat successful in disruption (contributing to the absence of major attacks on U.S. soil), slightly less successful in dismantling (insofar as certain affiliate movements had been temporarily, but not permanently, dismantled), and largely unsuccessful in defeating affiliates or the core leadership.

One of the least expected, but most fascinating, parts of McQuaid’s presentation came in response to a question about how long she was given to complete these large-scale analytic assessments and whether there was really adequate time to tackle complex issues that required a closer look. McQuaid said that attention spans are short, and that there is an increasing demand for shorter turnarounds and shorter final products. External feedback to this effect had resulted in internal discussions about how to adapt, what would be required to do high-quality analysis in 6, rather than 12, months, and how final reports should be written and formatted given scant interest in reading a 250-page assessment. It is not enough, she noted, to simply produce a report; the challenge is to produce a report (or perhaps a series of shorter reports) that is accessible. Even the most impressive conclusions can do little to raise new questions or highlight new issues if no one reads the product.

The Center for Strategic Studies at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy thanks Julia McQuaid for her participation in the Engaging Practitioners Series. We look forward to her next visit to Fletcher and the upcoming publications of her team at CNA.