NORC and Mathematica CEOs on the Future of Data and Evidence

[DAN GAYLIN]

There's a fine line between objectivity and independence and activism. And, of course, that's a challenge for all of us in these increasingly polarized times that the tendency for any person to start to feel more activist and "this is the right thing to do and this is what we should be doing and this is why and we should be telling people what's right and what's wrong," going back to your somebody's right and somebody's wrong, of course, the superpower of places like NORC and Mathematica is that we're independent and objective and neutral and we produce, you know, facts and figures for the American people and the world and, you know, neutral analyses. And it's not our job. And, in fact, if we stray into making this our job, we degrade that superpower -- to say "this is the answer, this is what this means and this is the right philosophical position to take."

[J.B. WOGAN]

I’m J.B. Wogan from Mathematica and welcome back to On the Evidence.

In the past few years, organizations that help improve public well-being by providing data-driven insights have witnessed significant changes. From a digital transformation hastened by big data and artificial intelligence to the globalization of evidence-based solutions that transcend borders, changes in technology and culture are challenging leaders to rethink how their organizations operate.

On this episode of On the Evidence, we get a chance to hear from two such leaders on how they are approaching these changing times. Mathematica’s President and CEO Paul Decker steps back into the host chair for a wide-ranging discussion with NORC President and CEO Dan Gaylin. Paul and Dan talk about leadership, artificial intelligence, hybrid work, the COVID-19 pandemic, globalization, and advocating for the use of high quality evidence without straying into activism.

I hope you enjoy the conversation.

[PAUL DECKER]

Dan, welcome to Mathematica and to the "On the Evidence" podcast. It's great to have you here.

[DAN GAYLIN]

A pleasure to be here. Thanks for having me.

[PAUL DECKER]

You bet. And I really look forward to this conversation.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Me too.

[PAUL DECKER]

Just to get us started, tell us a little bit about your background and your path into the field of policy research.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah, I actually -- I know that you and I have sort of similar paths so I'm going to ask you the same thing. But my situation is I grew up here in Washington and both my parents are health care practitioners and they also, you know, a Jewish family, they instilled values of, you know, justice and fairness and looking out for the disadvantaged in me and the Jewish principle of tikkun olam, which is -- which means repairing the world. And, so, those were all, you know, parts of my life growing up and I really respected what they did. So, I went into college pre-med. But, when I got to college, as I started thinking about everything, I realized that as much as I admired and respect the helping a person one person at a time, as my parents do, I was interested in more population- based or broader solutions. And, so, it became, you know, very obvious that policy and health policy in particular was going to be the way for me. And it just went on from there.

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah, yeah. And then so kind of how did that translate to graduate school and then entering into the -- to the market itself?

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah, well, I really wanted to get some research experience after college. So, I went to work at the Urban Institute.

[PAUL DECKER]

Okay.

[DAN GAYLIN]

You know, found the job through a friend's mom after sending out a lot of applications and getting rejected from every place I sent them to. So, always use your networks. And your friends moms or dads are great networks. And, after several years there, being -- you know, being around a lot of social scientists and a lot of economists, you know, I just looked around at the programs and realized that a public policy program was going to be, you know, where I would get the kind of training that I was most interested in getting.

[PAUL DECKER]

And where did you go?

[DAN GAYLIN]

I went to Princeton to what they now call --

[PAUL DECKER]

Okay.

[DAN GAYLIN]

The School of Public and International Affairs.

[PAUL DECKER]

Okay.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

Was there any professor on the faculty at Princeton that was particularly influential in how your path proceeded --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

From there?

[DAN GAYLIN]

You know, this is going to sound like I'm making this answer up to impress and it's not at all. But it so happens that two of my most influential professors were Angus Deaton and Anne Case. I took Angus's econometrics class for the policy students and it was just -- I had done a lot of, you know, statistical analysis and, you know, regression work at the Urban Institute, but the way he taught the -- the theoretical underpinnings of econometrics and analytics was just -- he's an amazing professor in addition to being a Nobel laureate and --

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah, he's legendary.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah. And Anne Case was my public finance professor. And same thing there, she was just -- she brought a depth and a richness to the material that just made it exciting and interesting and kind of validated my, "Oh, yeah, this is why I came here for graduate school," so. Yeah. How about you? Did you have any particularly influential professors who were --

[PAUL DECKER]

I did.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

So, I did my graduate work at John's Hopkins --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

A Ph.D. in economics. And my adviser -- so, during a time, as you know, when economics was very math-intensive --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Right.

[PAUL DECKER]

I had an adviser who was fine in handling the math, but he was always focused on how do you think about the issues separate from the equations --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

And think through about kind to how to make a practical difference.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

Bruce Hamilton --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Oh, sure, yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

Is his name, so.

[DAN GAYLIN]

And Angus Deaton's approach is very similar.

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

You know?

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

And I think -- you know, I think if you are going to end up doing what we want to do, having a professor who makes the connection to the applied world -- which not all professors can do. Right?

[PAUL DECKER]

Right.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Not all professors have the experience or the knowledge or the depth. So, it's --

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

It's a real benefit,

[PAUL DECKER]

Not all, maybe most. So, obviously, you've progressed in your career to have more of a leadership role at NORC now as CEO.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

Tell me about the transition. Kind of where did that happen? That's a question I get all the time.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

And, so, it's really interesting to me how that transition works.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah, I mean, it's interesting, right, because I think the first thing to say is it's a slow transition. You know? Or at least it was for me. You know, it's not like you wake up one day and it's like, "Okay, now you're in leadership." You know, it's very gradual as you learn more about the business and more about the institution you're a part of. And, you know, what I think happens for most of us is you -- while you continue to be gratified by doing your own research -- and I will say this is the first job I've had at NORC, where I've been for over 20 years, where I'm not doing much research.

[PAUL DECKER]

Right.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Like all the jobs before, I still did a fair amount of research. But, as this transition happens, you know, I think you spend a little less time thinking about your own research and maybe your own research becomes a little less interesting to you also. And what becomes more interesting to you is other people's work and the totality of that work as a greater whole. And, so, you start thinking about the institution and its impact and, you know, the strategies the organization is employing to -- you know, to develop itself and to have more reach and impact in the world. And that becomes very energizing and gratifying. And, so, that becomes, you know, the thing that kind of gets you out of bed in the morning is how do I make this place better and more effective, how do I create a stable and effective platform on which all of the smart people who work here can do their thing and do it increasingly well.

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah, yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Is that your -- is your experience as well?

[PAUL DECKER]

Absolutely, yeah, very parallel.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

One of the ways I think about it is building.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

And, so, when I would think about a project, I thought about how do I build this project to fit the design of the major research questions that we had in the beginning.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Right.

[PAUL DECKER]

And I just translate that same sense of building to the organization kind of in the level in the way that you described --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

So.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah, when I -- when I'm explaining it to people who ask me that internally, you know, and I don't say this in any kind of -- you know, with any kind of hubris, it's -- but it's sort of a scale thing. So, if you're a project director, your tasks are the tasks of the project. If you're a department head, your tasks are the projects. And if you're -- you know, if you're in leadership, then your tasks are the departments. And that doesn't make -- it's -- none is any better or worse, it's just sort of --

[PAUL DECKER]

Right.

[DAN GAYLIN]

A level of focus and the resolution of the lens in terms of what you're focusing on.

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah, yeah. In making that transition to leadership, did you have any particular experience or a particular skill that you had developed over time that you found maybe surprisingly was particularly helpful on the leadership end of things?

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah, I mean, I'm not so sure about the surprises. I mean, I knew that -- it's very clear, at least at NORC, that I think it's very hard for anybody to be in this role who isn't accepted and respected as a researcher.

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

You know, you just -- it's hard to lead a group of researchers if you don't have the bona fide in having done that and appreciating the work, so certainly coming up from that experience. I also think, you know, being a program evaluation person, you know, applying some of those skills like, you know, the carpenter fixing his own roof a little bit, you know, being able to measure our progress and assess, you know, is the organization going where we want it to. If so, why? If not, why not? Those are helpful skills. And then, you know, I've spent time in the public sector, the private sector and the not-for-profit sector. In fact, multiple stints in each. And that has really helped me just have perspective for all of our stakeholders and particularly the clients. Right? You know, I understand when we're trying to get something done for a client -- having been in the federal government a few times, I really understand how they're looking at a project and what their constraints are and what we need to do to, you know, be helpful to them.

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

So, I think those have all been useful. I'm not sure -- you know, surprises, that's an interesting one. Let me -- while I think about that, maybe I can ask you that question.

[PAUL DECKER]

Well, my -- maybe the surprise is pretty similar to what you described that, you know, we spend our early part of our career as being data analysts and thinking about how evidence drives decisions. And, it turns out, that's a really important approach --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Right.

[PAUL DECKER]

To take as a leader ---

[DAN GAYLIN]

Right.

[PAUL DECKER]

Of an organization --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

Because people have lots of different views and opinions on what the organization should do, what they need to do to contribute to the organization. But it's important to take people back to what do we actually observe in front of us --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

In terms of what's happening, what are the problems, how are the steps that we're taking addressing the specific problems that we see.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah. Yeah, I agree with that. And I think another surprise along the same lines is, you know, because you and I are both privileged to work in organizations full of really smart, capable people, you know, the problems they bring to us are not -- there are no obvious answers to the --

[PAUL DECKER]

Right.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Problems. And, of course, they're bringing us problems like that all the time.

[PAUL DECKER]

Right.

[DAN GAYLIN]

And, so, you know, a lot of times when you engage with somebody on that -- on those kind of problems, it's more of a discussion and conversation, you know, very collaborative about what some of the best paths might be. It's not this, you know, "Hey, Dan, please come and make this judgment call for me."

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

So, I think that -- you know, that was a surprise was just how, you know, even in the day-to-day, the fresh problems flown in daily can be quite complex.

[PAUL DECKER]

Right. Kind of building on a point that you made about being at the federal government, I just wanted to dig into that a little bit because you're in a unique position of having been both a client as well as a contractor --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

In our industry. So, tell me a little bit about your experience in the federal government and how that perspective that you developed as a client then played into how you viewed the world as a contractor.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah. Okay, I'm going to try and keep this appropriately short.

[PAUL DECKER]

Right.

[DAN GAYLIN]

I mean, so, my first job in government, I was actually an intern at the National Institute of Mental Health on campus in Building 10 working for a guy named Norman Rosenthal, who you may have heard of. He is the seasonal affective disorder king in terms of research. He's the guy who developed light therapy and light boxes. And I was actually working on double-blind crossover trials where we were exposing people to light boxes and seeing if their depression scores improved. And that was just an incredibly good sort of, you know, like in the trench's research experience, intramural research in the government. It also gave me a sense for intramural research in the government.

My second job was working for the assistant secretary of Management and Budget during health care reform. So, that was, you know, extremely interesting. I just learned a ton about all of the, you know, different ways in which the Department of Health and Human Services digs in and tackles a major secretarial and presidential policy initiative. So, that was extremely interesting.

And then the third time, which is really -- I think was the most formative and it was the longest amount of time, several years, I was director of Research and Planning in the Office of Health Policy at HHS, and often working directly on secretarial initiatives. But what that gave me was a chance to learn about all of the data and research across the department. So, you know, that was enormously helpful coming back to the research world at a place like NORC because I had a familiarity with the datasets, with the agencies and the stewards of those data. And, you know, everything we do involves data.

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

And, so, having that understanding of the research priorities and the data assets of the department and the gaps really helped me get a handle on how to help develop those -- you know, more further develop NORC's health portfolio --

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Which is what I was hired when I first came to NORC to do.

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah, that sounds like a great grounding because you see where research meets the policy world --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Right.

[PAUL DECKER]

In this kind of big picture way that you talked about.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

And to be able to carry that around with you is really valuable as a leader.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah. And it's interesting, too, because, you know, like anywhere else in government, the people who are focused on data and research are -- you know, the people who are really close to the programs are kind of like, "Who are you and why are you here?"

[PAUL DECKER]

Right.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Right? And, so, you also get that perspective of how do I make sure that what we're doing here is relevant for the people who are actually -- who actually have the really tough jobs of managing and operating the programs.

[PAUL DECKER]

Mhm, mhm. Back to leadership. Are there any principles that you think about that are kind of bedrock for you in how you want to --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

Lead?

[DAN GAYLIN]

This question that you and I probably each get asked, you know, multiple times a week. So, I'm going to throw it back at you in a minute. You know, some of these always sound like platitudes, but they're platitudes because, you know, they're meaningful. You know, platitudes have their place in terms of being meaningful and robust statements about what we aspire to be as human beings in a group and how people who have the privilege of leading groups want to -- they want to comport themselves. So, for me, you know, I focus on kindness and respect. You know? I think everyone deserves to work in a place where people are kind to each other and where they respect one another and they intentionally demonstrate that they value one another. Along with that is this concept that I talk about called "benefit of the doubt." Some people devolve that into "assume positive intent," which I think is a good principle. But, for me, benefit of the doubt goes a little further than that because it says, "Look we're all human beings. And you know what? On any given day, depending upon what's happened to a person outside of the office, what's going on in their life that you don't know anything about, they might actually not be demonstrating positive intent in the moment." Right?

[PAUL DECKER]

Right, yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

And -- but your job, as a colleague and as a person who recognizes that, from a big picture perspective, we all have common goals and we're all committed to the mission, is to say, "You know what? I'm not going to take that personally. I'm going to recognize that this person is a valuable contributor here who deserves my respect." And all of this kind of fits under the rubric of -- you know, of -- I mean, it's a very popular term these days, "servant leadership." I actually don't love the term. I've kind of reframed it a little to "service leadership," because I believe we're all in service of the mission and we are in service of one another. Right? And, so, that means that all of us have this obligation to look out for each other, to do right by one another and -- you know, and to make sure that we are working together to do our best work to advance the mission.

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah. One of the concepts that we talk about a lot that's consistent with that is recognizing that you're a member of the community --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

That you're not just operating independently.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah, exactly.

[PAUL DECKER]

Every action you take, every decision you make has an impact on people around you and you need to be conscious of that.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah, 100%. Yeah, I think you and I have talked about this a lot and, frankly, our views on leadership are very similar. And, you know, it's funny, there are some organizations I think that aim for a more, you know, intense competitive. And, you know, in some -- some level of internal competition is not necessarily a bad thing. But we tend to err on the side of let's make sure you feel that you have colleagues. You know --

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah, yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Not competitors.

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah. You mentioned assume positive intent. And describe to me again what the -- how you describe the principle of the similar—.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah. I use the term "benefit of the doubt" --

[PAUL DECKER]

Benefit of the doubt.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Instead, because I think it just widens the circle a little bit and says, "You know, if someone's being grumpy and -- you know, and you're not enjoying your interaction with them in the moment, there may not actually be in that moment positive intent." Right? But the benefit of the doubt is, "Hey, why are they behaving this way that's -- you know, that's not feeling so good," --

[PAUL DECKER]

Right.

[DAN GAYLIN]

"Because this isn't how they usually behave and it's not how I come to think of them." And, so, then before you personalize it, you just say, "All right, you know, I'm going to let this go. I'm going to take a beat. And, you know, we'll come back tomorrow and get to a better place."

[PAUL DECKER]

Right. Often when these issues come up, my intent is to keep it away from the framing, which tends to be the default framing of, "All right, somebody's right and somebody's wrong."

[DAN GAYLIN]

Exactly.

[PAUL DECKER]

That's rarely ever the case. And some of it is digging down to exactly what you said. I had a friend one time who said -- who described a good principle around that, which is when you have a disagreement between two individuals, get them to project on each other what are the three reasonable legitimate reasons why they're taking the position they're taking.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

And you get people to kind of put themselves in each other's shoes in that way and it gets it out of this framing of, "Well, somebody's right and somebody's wrong, and I think" --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

"It's the other person that's wrong."

[DAN GAYLIN]

I love that. And, you know, I actually think in some ways that's the essence of benefit of the doubt.

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

You know, if you're going to sit there and impute three reasons why the person might be behaving the way they are, then you're literally -- you're showing empathy, you're putting yourself in their shoes and you're saying, "I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt in this behavior that they're manifesting."

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

So, yeah, that's really good. I'm going to remember that one.

[PAUL DECKER]

What about the challenges to leadership? Particularly, I'll say, you know, kind of the challenges that arose during the pandemic in our organizations. And then what are the challenges right now?

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah. I mean, look, I think in organizations like ours, it's fair to say that one of the biggest challenges is the uncertainty with, you know, federal funding. You know, the policy stream changes, the priorities of the administration changes, certain things become in vogue, certain things fall out of favor. And, you know, we build capability in these things and we have staff who are experts and you have to figure out how to redeploy them. The pandemic was kind of a perfect example of that where, you know, as you know, a substantial amount of the work we do at NORC is survey research and, you know, we had all these surveys that required -- that were designed based on, you know, no pandemic of course. And, so, the idea of what do you do with all of these staff idled and the project's, you know, just kind of stuck. And, you know, it ended up being very exciting in that we were able to pivot most of those projects. We either changed the approach to data collection, just as everybody changed the approach to how they work, you know, going --

[PAUL DECKER]

Right.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Virtual.

[PAUL DECKER]

Right.

[DAN GAYLIN]

We actually changed a bunch of the instruments to be collecting really valuable and interesting information on the pandemic itself. And, in some cases, we developed -- we redeployed the skills and we ended up doing a lot of contact tracing. So, I think, you know, the nimbleness that organizations like ours have to have shouldn't be understated. You know, we're soft money research organizations. So, you know, what that means is on a continuous basis somebody has to want the services that you're prepared to deliver. And, so, you -- those services have to be flexible enough to respond to changing conditions on the ground. So, I think that's the main challenge. You know, I mean, there are so many versions of it that we experienced during the pandemic. What about you?

[PAUL DECKER]

Similar sorts of adjustments that we had to make. I mean, you know, it's interesting, and I'm interested to hear how it worked for your work overseas, you know, it seemed like in the first couple of weeks of the pandemic it froze those projects --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

Because everybody's so used to travel triggering --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Right.

[PAUL DECKER]

The different phases of a project. And it took a while for people to internalize, "Oh, no, no, we can get, whatever it is, 95% of what we need by doing this through a video call," or, you know, whatever the substitute is.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

But it took people a while to get used to that, just the mindset of that.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

It doesn't have to be exactly the way we designed it in --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

The beginning.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah. And I think -- I mean, to me, that's one of the great strengths of organizations like ours is I think the creativity and nimbleness with which we say, "Oh, well, that might not work, but what about this," you know, pulling out a different tool from the toolkit, modifying an existing tool. You know, it's that can-do attitude that I think makes it such a pleasure to work at places like this. And --

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

I mean, I think, as another challenge though, I'd go back to one thing I said earlier, which is, you know, it is challenging that people -- you know, these are people who are good at thinking through system solutions and good at solving problems and so you get a lot of input. I do anyways. I imagine you do, too, --

[PAUL DECKER]

Right.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Of like, "Here's what we should do, here's the answer." Right? And the thing is there are a lot of good ideas in it, but often because, you know, they spend most of their day focused on their research and not the total organization, they don't understand some of the constraints or limitations for why, you know, adopting that idea isn't. So, you get lots of good ideas, but helping people understand which ones are going to work and which ones aren't --

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

I think is an important part of the challenge of leading one of these organizations.

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah. And, to some extent, you know, kind of similar to your lesson from the pandemic, there's no substitute for trying it out --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah

[PAUL DECKER]

And recognizing from the beginning, "Hey, we adjust to things as a situation calls for it."

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

"And, so, let's not get too torn up in the theory about why or why something won't work."

[DAN GAYLIN]

Right.

[PAUL DECKER]

"Let's try it out a little bit" --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

"And -- because we know we're going to adjust."

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah, I love to quote that old policy text, I'm going to forget the reference, but the "ready, fire, aim, fire, aim." We do a lot of that at NORC.

[PAUL DECKER]

Right, right. So, let's switch a little bit to trends --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

That we see around us. And I think, you know, the big trend that plays into our business discussions these days is the disruption that's represented by digital technology --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Right.

[PAUL DECKER]

In our industry. How are you thinking about the advances in digital technology in thinking about the ways in which NORC needs to adjust to those advances in order to --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

Do its work?

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah, I mean, a huge and very important question, right, we could have a whole podcast on. You know, the way I think about this is in one way very straightforward, in one way maybe a little less obvious. I mean, places like NORC and Mathematica, our substrate is data. Right? It's the sort of raw material -- it's the building material of basically everything we do. So, when you think about the fact that the purpose of digital technology is to, you know, make more efficient and effective the way we generate and create, manage and store, analyze and, you know, combine and disseminate --

[PAUL DECKER]

All the stuff we do.

[DAN GAYLIN]

All the stuff we do, right, there is literally no part, you know, of that spectrum where digital technology is not changing the way we do our work. So, you know, that's very exciting on the one hand. And, I mean, what it gives us an opportunity to engage in is not only all the ways on sort of a one-off project basis where we can be employing different and evolving digital technology to do our work better, but it also gives us an opportunity to look at a sort of solutions level, you know, enterprise solutions level what are some products or services that we can create that will not only help us be much more effective in a whole constellation of our work, but becomes an interesting opportunity for our clients as something that they want to use and have. So, a couple of examples.

You know, we created AmeriSpeak, it's a multimode probability-based panel that's designed to sort of use the best of digital technology to create a much more rapid and cost-effective way to do random telephone surveys. And, you know, it works really well.

By the same token, there are a lot of datasets out there, survey-based, that are nonprobability panels. So, we created another tool called TrueNorth, which is designed to recalibrate nonprobability panels to be nationally representative using our national frame and AmeriSpeak as a base. So, like that's on the data collection side.

On the data storage side -- and you guys have one of these, too, we created our Data Enclave, you know, Advanced Data Solutions Center, which is all about bringing together microdata that's sensitive and that would be hard to analyze from a security and confidentiality standpoint in other platforms, but, because of this platform, you can impose certain security regimes on it, you can do disclosure analysis and deidentification work. You know?

And I could go on. We created a visualization studio so that when you're sharing data, you know, we call it VizStudio, it's like a way of, "Okay, how can I make sure that the information is being presented in the most compelling way possible." So, in every sense, we're kind of trying to take the building blocks of what we do, and not just on a project-by-project basis, create comprehensive solutions that become service offerings of them -- in and of themselves to clients, but also enable all of the projects to take full advantage of digital technology.

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

And, again, I think the organizations tend to think about these things pretty similarly.

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah, yeah. Do you run into any conflict between those two concepts? And, by those two concepts, I mean the digital technology that you're intending to make available directly to clients versus the digital technology you're intending to enable the professional services of -- that are being provided through projects.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Hmm. I don't really think so. I mean, generally, they're complimentary, they don't tend to step on each other's toes. Sure, clients have different desires in terms of how much they want to own their data and be in charge of the sort of final mile of putting it out in the world versus, "Hey, help us analyze this and really present it and package it up in ways." So, there's that tension a little bit, if you could call it a tension. Is there something that you're getting at in terms of how you've seen that at Mathematica?

[PAUL DECKER]

Well, I just wonder about, you know, when you develop software tools that you're going to put in the hands of your clients, it might be a different standard of how the organization has to develop and manage that software product that they're not really going to control directly. The client's --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Got it.

[PAUL DECKER]

Going to control --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Got it, yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

Directly. And what impact that might have on how -- on the organizational mindset about how you go about doing your work.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah. No, that makes sense. You know, we don't -- so, far anyways, we don't tend to put the tools -- it's not so much, "Here's an instance of the technology for you to have and use client."

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

It's more, "We'll use this tool however you'd like us to."

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

And that's how we manage to sort of keep it at a, you know, "These are the standards and levels of quality and rigor and integration with other stuff that we feel is necessary." But that's -- I can hear from your discussion that that's a challenge that's coming. That sounds like something you guys have been grappling with.

[PAUL DECKER]

Well, yes, and it's -- well, in the sense that we see it on the horizon.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

And the question is, "To what extent do we want to put the tools" --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Right.

[PAUL DECKER]

"In the hands of our clients?"

[DAN GAYLIN]

For sure.

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

For sure. And out into the ether generally because there's always AI waiting to consume it and tell everybody else how to do it.

[PAUL DECKER]

Right, right. Speaking of which, we've been through this I guess probably 15-year phase of integrating data science into our traditional social science.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

And that's kind of the founding of our organizations. And that has its own challenges. But now we're going to turn it up a notch with AI.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

So, how do you think about AI in that picture?

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah. And, you know, I think we should have a disclaimer for this podcast that anything we say today will be wrong in two weeks.

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah, correct.

[DAN GAYLIN]

So -- because that's how fast this subject is moving. But, you know, let's give it a shot. You know, I think the consensus among the experts and the other CEOs I talk to is, you know, we are not at a place, maybe I should say "yet," we're not at a place yet where the terminator is coming for all of our jobs and, you know, we should all just go home. Instead, it's a situation where those with AI skills and those who are using AI -- deploying AI technology in their day-to-day activities and in their more -- most advanced sophisticated work for customers are going to be at an advantage relative to -- you know, to organizations and people who don't have AI skills. And, so, the -- given that that's sort of obvious, the obvious response to that is that all of us need to be both as institutions and looking out for our -- for the people who work in them, we need to be rapidly familiarizing ourself with this technology, acquiring the skills and figuring out appropriate ways to start deploying it in our day-to-day. That word "appropriate," of course, is the rub --

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Because, you know, on the one hand, you absolutely want to encourage experimentation and, you know, literally just playing around with it to understand what it does. I find that instead of reading that next article in the newspaper that I might have done, I have a conversation with ChatGPT just to sort of, you know, get familiar with the technology. But, you know, so you want to encourage people familiarizing themself with the technology and you want to start experimenting with applications of it and you want to actually use it where you're clear that it will make things more effective or more efficient and it won't come at some cost that you -- you know, that could be quite problematic.

[PAUL DECKER]

Right.

[DAN GAYLIN]

And so, you know, what we are doing, and I know this is kind of very similar to what most organizations are doing, is you're setting -- you set ground rules. You say, "This is the kind of experimentation we want to encourage, these are for now the applications where we see it's okay to start trying to use it in your deliverables, being very transparent about that with the clients. These are areas where we're probably going to stay away from it for now and here are the reasons why that could change." You know? And then there's a whole gray area of, "Maybe let's talk about it." Right?

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

So, I mean, that's -- but I do think it has enormous potential. You know, I mean, we have already had a number of successes using AI in work we're doing for clients to improve that work, some of it in the contact tracing work, for example, you know, some of it looking at algorithmic bias in health care and also just in our day-to-day, you know, making the way our -- we document our tickets in our help desk --

[PAUL DECKER]

Right.

[DAN GAYLIN]

More efficient. So, we're already finding, you know, great uses for it, but, you know, we have to do this in a way that's careful about both known and unknown consequences.

[PAUL DECKER]

Right. And that's the challenge is you have to do both at once.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Right.

[PAUL DECKER]

You have to be aggressive about embracing the capabilities. And, as we said, there's no substitute for testing it out, seeing what works and developing new views --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

Based on that experience. But you've got to manage the risk --

[DAN GAYLIN]

You've got to manage the risk.

[PAUL DECKER]

In the process.

[DAN GAYLIN]

But I actually think, and I'm wondering if this is how it is at Mathematica, I've actually been -- you know, disappointed is not a fair word, but I've been surprised at how, you know, our folks at NORC who are naturally very curious and always wanting to try the new thing, there's a lot of trepidation. You know? And, so, I -- when I asked for a show of hands of people who had, you know, been -- you know, been kind of playing around with the technology, I was surprised at how many hands didn't go up.

[PAUL DECKER]

Mhm.

[DAN GAYLIN]

So, I think right now there's a bit of -- because of the hype and because of how quickly it's moving, I think people are being naturally cautious. That's not entirely a bad thing, but it might mean that we're a little slow to adopt something that could become very, very valuable.

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah, yeah. One of the interesting things I've observed in talking to other CEOs is every CEO is working on this --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

Now. And it doesn't matter, you know, companies like ours, small companies, manufacturing companies, I never get a blank look --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Mhm.

[PAUL DECKER]

When I ask a CEO about AI.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Mhm.

[PAUL DECKER]

Everybody's got a story.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

So, there seems -- you know, our focus on how important this is seems widespread --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

To all organizations.

[DAN GAYLIN]

A hundred percent.

[PAUL DECKER]

Even if they know nothing --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

About data and analysis and the way that we know about it or wouldn't even know what I was talking about in terms of data science, they're really focused on AI as both a threat and an opportunity --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah --

[PAUL DECKER]

Organization.

[DAN GAYLIN]

I couldn't agree more. I'm not sure it's right for me to further reveal this company because they did a real public service, but a major Chicago company recently shared with the tech community in Chicago how they had been targeted in a deep fake scam that was so sophisticated that the bad actors had scraped images of the CEO's office and likeness from the web --

[PAUL DECKER]

Right.

[DAN GAYLIN]

And it created a deep fake, fully believable animation of her, which was then being used to try and get officers of the company to do other things.

[PAUL DECKER]

Right.

[DAN GAYLIN]

And it was a wakeup call I think that, you know, sure, it's easy to spin a really scary story out there to sell newspaper stories, but some of the very significant threats are -- you know, are quite real.

[PAUL DECKER]

Mhm. You mentioned the hesitancy of folks to embrace experimentation, more hesitancy than you might have expected ahead of time. So, that suggests that people might be afraid of the impact of AI on their careers, the way in which they go about doing their work.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

What do you observe or -- and then what do you forecast the impact to be on people?

[DAN GAYLIN]

At the workplace?

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah, at the workplace. And it can go beyond the workplace, but --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah. I mean, I think what people are most afraid of is -- you know, our staff, just like the staff at Mathematica, you know, you and I've talked enough, I know that this is a fair statement for both organizations, you know, they're -- they really care about the quality and integrity of our work, right, and they consider that -- you know, that it's central to the mission. And, so, anything that compromises the quality and integrity of our work is a bad thing. And, so, you know, sure, they're afraid in terms of career outcomes. But, ultimately, what that fear stems from is, "I don't want to do something that's going to make this really important deliverable, you know, flawed or misleading or just, you know, wrong."

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah, yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

And I have a lot of respect for that concern. It shows stewardship, it shows commitment to the mission and to the clients. So, you know, I think, again, as we set these policies and guidelines and we make sure that they're nimble enough to evolve over time, like with anything new and unknown, people will get past that immediate fear of "this is going to bring a lot of change and I don't know what change," and we'll be clearer on the use cases that are appropriate, and it'll really start to make people's lives better, you know, again though, with some actual -- absolutely predictable consequences. I mean, you know, if you can start doing a lot of your coding using AI, then you probably need fewer coders, or not necessarily fewer coders, but the coders you want are going to be the ones who are not doing the nuts-and-bolts coding, but, you know, the higher level, "Okay, how do I turn this into a model" --

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

"That's really going to: -- you know? And, yes, "And how do I use the AI to actually put the building blocks together in an effective way?" So, I think it can be very helpful to making us more efficient and more effective. It will be very helpful in terms of just speed, in some senses, quality. You know, one thing we haven't talked about, you know, my kids are past college at this point, but I think young parents are going to have a really interesting time of it as their kids start turning to AI to help them with all of their schoolwork.

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah, right.

[DAN GAYLIN]

And that's going to be a real interesting one to sort through. So, I mean, I think the potential is enormous, as you said, the risks are substantial.

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah, yeah. Let's switch to another topic.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

And that is something that -- around our workplace being turbocharged in terms of transformation due to the pandemic. Now, Mathematica, and I think the same thing at NORC, you know, we had people working at home prior to the pandemic. We had approximately 25% of our staff working from home prior to the pandemic.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

And then the pandemic happened, everybody was home for some period. And even now, whatever it is, four years later, the vast majority of our staff are working outside the office most of the week.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

And, so, as that evolution has happened, how have you approached the changing nature of the way people are working and both with regard to how the work gets done and how the work changes, but also just kind of how people are working together?

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah, I mean, I think we've all learned that going to a much more comprehensive work from home and fully flexible model has been in many ways a very good thing. I mean -- and a lot of the nay saying about, "Oh, this will never work and the organization's going to start to degrade slowly over time because, you know, right now you're drawing from this bank of interpersonal familiarity and that." You know, I think there's a lot -- there was a lot of hype there and a lot of that is -- has been proven to be overstated. I think the ability to quickly bring people together from all over the place -- because, you know, some -- just like you, we had a number of staff who were already fully remote and we have staff all over the country --

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

You know, in different locations and the ability to bring people together quickly and, you know, sort of spontaneously is an extraordinary benefit. We've learned how to use this technology in ways that has other implications for our work, going back to one of your previous questions. You know, people are now so much more familiar with using things like Zoom and Teams that, you know, the idea of doing video interviewing for some of our survey work has -- you know, is -- has gone from, "Oh, that's something we could try," to "Of course we can do that." Right?

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

So, I think there's many, many unintended consequences. And many of them are good. And, certainly, the fact that staff report being very happy with the flexibility that has come from this learning that we were -- that was forced upon us by the pandemic is not something that should be -- is something that should be taken very seriously. What I will say though is as things continue to evolve and this is the nature of human beings, right, we are now starting to hear more of what one might expect as you are in a predominantly remote world, which is, you know, we're starting to hear a lot more, "I don't feel connected to the organization. I don't know anybody. I don't feel like I have a team. I'm not feeling like I have a mentor. I feel like this deliverable that we're working on I just can't pull it together as effectively as I would like with -- you know, with everybody on a screen." And, so, we've started to think about this just from a sort of multiple needs concept, right, which is all of those are legitimate needs of the people and the business and, you know, our job as management is to figure out how to create an optimal solution that addresses most of those needs in an effective way. And, so, you know, we have started designing what we're calling a touchpoint strategy which is designed to foster and enable in-person interactions in a very specific way. So, it's nothing like "you will come in the office three days a week" --

[PAUL DECKER]

Right.

[DAN GAYLIN]

That, you know, in our industry and with our staff, not only is that -- would that not go over well at all, but it -- really, there's no percentage in it, there's no value to that kind of a --

[PAUL DECKER]

Right.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Strategy. And I know you agree with that. But instead it's, "Let's have -- let's create -- let's purposely create programming that becomes a important basis for why you should and would want to come in and spend time interacting with your colleagues in person." And, by the way, also purpose building our space, less of it --

[PAUL DECKER]

Right.

[DAN GAYLIN]

To accommodate and facilitate those interactions. And they fall into one of three areas. Right? One is just the connectedness engagement networking, you know, building relationships. The second is professional development and mentoring. And then the third is key business outcomes. So, you know, in order to make this deliverable or this brainstorming session or this client meeting most effective, we're going to do it in person. And, you know, we are in the process of creating that programming and getting the staff engaged in it. But I can say that we've gotten a lot of really positive response to it. And I do think it's the way to emerge from what I think of as sort of the holding pattern of the pandemic in a way that preserves all of the good things we learned we're able to do --

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

But also recognizes that that holding pattern is not an indefinite sustainable solution for the long term.

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah, yeah. I think, you know, the story you tell is one of continuous evolution --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

Basically. And I think that's absolutely right. I think kind of similar to the position that you described, I want to maintain the flexibility as much as possible meeting the needs that you described on one side which is, you know, people's needs and their individual lives in terms of needing flexibility in how they do their work --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Right, exactly.

[PAUL DECKER]

Integrate their work into the rest of their life. And, you know, you said, "Well, the problems that -- the potential problems that were associated with being remote may have been overhyped." That's true. The challenge of that is that's true for four years. What is it for eight years?

[DAN GAYLIN]

Right.

[PAUL DECKER]

What is it for 12 years?

[DAN GAYLIN]

Correct.

[PAUL DECKER]

And, so, we'll see what that is. But I can't say I'm totally certain, but I believe there's a reasonable probability we can be remote workers and find a way to do it that's effective in terms of creating that team spirit, the relationships, the connectedness --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

In the organization. But we have to be proactive about that. We can't just say, "Oh, it'll just happen the same way it used to happen when we were walking by each other in the hallways every day."

[DAN GAYLIN]

Exactly right. Yeah, I agree with everything you said 100%. I think another thing that's worth pointing out, it seems almost like a mundane point, but it -- at least for us, it's central to the imperative to start to figure this out, which is the space itself, you know, because, I mean, that's how I ended up having the conversation with some of our most senior staff. I'm like, "Well, look, you know, if you don't want to start developing some intentional programming around why and when we want people in the office for very good reasons that'll be good for them, good for the organization, good for our stakeholders, you know, we can entertain that possibility, but we should probably entertain that possibility without any space."

[PAUL DECKER]

Right.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Or with very, very little. Because why are we paying, you know, space for all of the -- in the business model, it's a very, very large portion of the cost.

[PAUL DECKER]

Right.

[DAN GAYLIN]

And, so, you know -- and I said like, "Look, we have decisions to make on space like now and coming up over the next several years. So, if that's really where you guys want to be, then we have to go through the thought experiment of, all right, so are you saying we don't need office space?" And, of course, then, when people start thinking about it that way, like, "Well, no, we do need office space for this and for that,” and so, then you say, "Okay. Right. So, how are we going to use the office space for this and for that in maximally effective ways?"

[PAUL DECKER]

Right. Yeah. And I think, at least to some extent, it doesn't always have to be about the office.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Correct.

[PAUL DECKER]

A lot of what we're talking about is in-person interaction. That can happen in an office, it can happen in a shared professional space --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yes.

[PAUL DECKER]

It can happen in Starbucks --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah, that's what I meant by space.

[PAUL DECKER]

Whatever it is.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah. I mean, it's --

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

It's just how we think about when we choose to engage in person in space, what is that going to look like.

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

And you have to have a plan.

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah. So, tell me a little bit more about the in-person culture in this new world where most staff aren't together in person. You described your kind of general approach. Where are you in that process?

[DAN GAYLIN]

I mean, we're in the early days

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

We are creating a team that we're calling our Employee Experience Team, whose job it will be to help us develop this intentional program. Because one thing I've heard from all of the -- you know, all the department heads who manage the large groups of staff is, "Conceptually, this is beautiful. It makes all the sense in the world. How are we going to figure out how to do this?" You know? And -- because we all have day jobs and, you know, we're still doing department meetings, we're still writing proposals we're -- and, you know, you would have thought that that thought had already occurred to me, but, frankly, I needed to hear it from them in a meeting before it sort of hit me in the face and I'm like, "Yeah, you're right." So, we're in -- relatively in the early days because we want to bring in people who can really help us with this. And there are people who have deep expertise. There is an aspect of change management --

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

In it. There's -- you know, there's a lot of thought that's been developed in the HR world around best practices post-pandemic. You know, there are people who -- more than, you know, people like you and me who are social scientists and grew up to become leaders of these organizations who have a playbook and a toolkit for helping figure this stuff out that's better than ours.

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

So, we're starting to find some of those people both as consultants and also to hire into the organization. And that's how we've explained it to the organization is we're not just going to go and like make this stuff up, we're going to use best practices and experts, and it's going to be deeply informed by the staff themselves, what do you want, what works for you, what kinds of things would you be excited to come in and have, you know, collisions --

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

With other people over, you know, to really understand the needs and the desires.

[PAUL DECKER]

In what ways it -- are the principles that you just described reflected in the profile of the Employee Experience Committee? Is this kind of -- almost a random sample of staff? Or is it --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah. We're still figuring that out, too.

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

You know, it will not be a situation where -- you know, we're good scientists. Right? So, it won't be a situation where five or 10 people speak for -- you know, for 3,000 people. We're just not going to do that. So, it will probably be a series of continuing interactions and outreach as well as, you know, our Employee Engagement Survey and things of that nature to really make sure that we're sampling --

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Effectively and comprehensively.

[PAUL DECKER]

So, let's switch to another topic in terms of the markets that we serve through our work. I believe that NORC has a fairly large practice that focuses on developing countries' policy issues outside the U.S.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

And I wanted to consider how you think about that work, how -- kind of how did that work develop at NORC, how do you think about it as part of the bigger picture.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah, that's a great question. And I know Mathematica has done similar thinking. It's fair to say that in our 85-year -- almost 85-year history, we've always done international work, but, about 20 years ago, we decided to actually form a group that would be really focused on building a portfolio of international development work. And there were -- you know, there were a number of reasons for this. I think they're all pretty easy to understand and ones that I'm guessing were very similar to Mathematica.

You know, the first is we now do a fair amount of work with the private sector, too. And, you know, one of the things I like to say when some people are surprised by that is I'm like, "Well, you know, if you close yourself off to the private sector, then you fail to learn about a lot of things going on in the world. And we're a learning organization. So, it's simply not viable for us." Well, if you stay focused on the U.S., you're literally closing yourself off from the rest of the world. And there's a lot going on in the rest of the world and there's a lot to learn and there's a lot of things where -- you know, where we can be -- where we can potentially be helpful and -- you know, and advance our mission and, you know, hopefully, help improve people's lives. So, you know, it's kind of like almost flipping the question on its head when people are like, "Why are we doing this," it's, "Why shouldn't we be doing this? You know, we -- you know, tell me any -- this is the right thing to do."

And then when you get into the policy areas, as you well know, Paul, I mean, they're just -- they're some of the most deep and meaningful policy areas. So, whether you're talking about, you know, food insecurity or, you know, land use issues or gender-based violence or human trafficking or, you know, democracy and governance building, I mean, these are all, you know, very deeply important issues where we can -- you know, with our tools and systems and products and knowhow, help those things improve, it's a highly meaningful thing for the people involved, it's an impactful thing for the organization and it's front and center with our mission. So, you know, we've been very glad to do this work.

We've now been -- you know, we now have done work in over 100 countries around the world. It's a growing area for us. And, you know, sure, there are challenges to doing this work, which I imagine you might want to get into and we can talk about that, but as far as like the rationale, it's just so compelling. And we're -- you know, we're very proud and excited about that group -- that work. And I imagine it's very much the same at Mathematica.

[PAUL DECKER]

Absolutely. The intersection of mission and staff interest --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

Basically, we're a staff-driven organization. So, as long as we can make the case that it connects to the mission, that's what drives us --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

To those areas.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

What are some of the challenges --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Sure.

[PAUL DECKER]

That you see in that work?

[DAN GAYLIN]

I mean, the first one of course is just the cultural competencies that are required. You know, while cultural competency is required in all research and, you know, no one population even in the United States is the same, there are, you know, many, many different facets of different groups of people who you might work with and do research with and on. But, in foreign countries, you know, those differences are magnified. Cultural practices, there's not necessarily a common understanding of those. The regulatory and legal regimes can be highly different than what we're used to here. There can be ethical considerations around, you know, the ways in which the country that our staff will work in are, you know, problematic for us in terms of our core values and our mission. And, so, you have to think through all of that and you have to have, in some cases, well thought out sort of positional views, in other cases, just the administrative, legal, financial solutions. And then, finally, there's just a huge reliance on local partners. You know --

[PAUL DECKER]

Right.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Sure, you can have your staff on the ground, you could hire a bunch of staff in the country, but to do the work effectively for all the reasons I've been -- just been going through, you really need people who are from that place who can really give you the insights you need to do it well.

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah. Let me pick up on one of the challenges that you highlighted, the ethical issue, because that comes up periodically.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

People say, "Why would we do work in this country" --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

"Because of blank."

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

How do you manage that?

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah, it's really an interesting one because we take those objections quite seriously. You know, in fact, you know, whenever any of the staff has the question, you know, "Why are we doing this work, I'm not sure we should be doing this work, can you help me understand," you know, we tend to say a couple of things, which is that most of the time the work we're doing is being funded by a U.S. funder, right, or a European funding agency. So, we are not working directly for the country in question. So, if that country has questionable -- you know, if there's sort of concerns about corruption in government or it has a bad human rights record or whatever, the point is we're not actually working for that state. And if you actually flip that on its head, in working for USAID or, you know, the World Health Organization or DFID or one of the other funding organizations -- international funding organizations, the whole reason why they're focusing on that country is they believe that certain aspects of the regime and the life experience of people in that place because of the way the regime handles itself and treats its people, they're in need of our help. And, so, it's almost an opportunity to be a counterbalance for it. And, so, kind of a -- one more level of abstraction from that is the way we think about it, and I don't think this is a rationalization at all, is we're actually working for the people --

[PAUL DECKER]

Right.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Who live there, right, and not for the regime. We're not supporting the regime whose policies and actions we may not be supportive of. Now, if it gets to the point where those policies and actions create a really unsafe environment, obviously there's always safety issues in lots of the work we do, both domestically and internationally, but if it's a situation where our staff could end up in very, very dire circumstances as a result of doing their work, then we have to think really carefully about whether we can actually go forward.

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, sometimes when issues like this come up, I wonder about it from the perspective of people who need help in these nations, should they be penalized because of the nation they live in.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Exactly.

[PAUL DECKER]

They need help just like somebody in another nation does.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Exactly right.

[PAUL DECKER]

And I like the idea that they're the ultimate constituents.

[DAN GAYLIN]

That's right. And our staff really see it that way. You know, I'm sure your staff is the same way. Our staff who do the international work, they're very savvy people. I mean, obviously, some of the --

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Younger ones are learning the ropes from the people who have done it for a while. But all of them are people who I think are pretty -- they're self-aware, they are very thoughtful about the state of the world and the nature of the country they're going to, and they're dedicated and committed to doing this work that really is designed to help improve health and well-being of people in these places.

[PAUL DECKER]

Mhm. You mentioned private sector work.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

Can you say a little bit more about that?

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah. I mean, it's hard to say it in any kind of general way because we tend to do it case by case.

[PAUL DECKER]

Okay.

[DAN GAYLIN]

You know, our mission is to be a public -- an organization that serves the public interest. But we do believe that there are certain times when doing work for private concerns can be very much part of the mission and can also help us, as I said, learn and develop new skills and make a real contribution. I mean, one of the best and most -- you know, most clear-cut examples is we did a huge project for Meta, for Facebook --

[PAUL DECKER]

Mhm.

[DAN GAYLIN]

And it was huge in the sense it was really large financially. It also generated a bunch of profit, which, you know, I know in your world, a great -- a bunch of profit is great. But, you know, in the not-for-profit world, sometimes people are like, "Why are we making all this profit," which that's a whole other conversation we could talk about.

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

But the purpose of the project, right, was to help Facebook understand how its ecosystem changes civic engagement and voting behavior. So, that's like why NORC was put on the planet is to do projects like that. Right? And the -- and it was being done in a very open, transparent way. There were independent academics involved. And, by the way, all of the work -- you may have seen it, all of the work got published, there are six papers in the journal "Science" that came out of this work. So, like there is a project where, you know, if we're going to work for the private sector, that's a good one and we're making a real contribution. Now, there are other places where we'll do work for the private sector and it's not quite so perfectly aligned with mission, but it still has the opportunity for us to learn and develop skills. You know, it's a situation where we're not stepping on our core values, you know, where it still very much comports with our core values. And, you know, so it helps us develop NOA, it helps us build our network. And you know what? And getting back to the profit thing. You know, we have one board member who likes to say, you know, "More margin equals more mission."

[PAUL DECKER]

Right.

[DAN GAYLIN]

So, you know, if you can have some surplus and that allows you to devest in the organization, do R&D. This is all stuff, you know, you guys do all the time.

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

So, you know, we think the private sector work is -- it's never going to be a very substantial piece of our portfolio, but the work we choose to engage in is quite valuable to us and something we think is really important.

[PAUL DECKER]

In our focus, in our mission, obviously, both NORC and Mathematica, our intent is to inform decision-making that leads to increased public well-being. To do that, we have to be influential as organizations. And I would say, over the last 30+ years that I've been at Mathematica, that's been a journey. You know, 35 years ago, we might have thought of ourselves as, "Hey, we do the research, we don't get involved in any of the rest of it." And I would say, over that time, up to now, we've been migrating closer to the decisionmakers. 

So, it's no longer adequate to do the best project or write the best final report possible, throw it up on a shelf and you're done. You've got to be out there talking to decisionmakers, policymakers and making sure that research is understood, that it informs decisions in the right way. And that can be tricky, but the hope is that it leads to better decisions because they're more evidence-based.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

We've touched on the different roles you've had in the ecosystem. And, so, I wonder about your perspective on the trend. I described the trend for Mathematica, but I wonder in aggregate is the kind of work we do -- is it increasing an influence over time, what challenges are we facing with that evolution to continue. How do you observe it right now?

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah, wow, okay, that's a big question. A lot there.

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah. Pick whatever --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Let me --

[PAUL DECKER]

Part of it you choose.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Dig in on one part of it and then try and touch on some of the others. I mean, first, on the, you know, increasing awareness and visibility, I do think that that is central to what organizations like ours need to be focusing on. In fact, it's pillar one in our strategic plan, not necessarily because it's more important than any of the other pillars, but it's just one of the first things that we were sort of crystal clear on, like we need to up our game in terms of making people aware of the work and why.

Well, I mean, you said some of this, Paul, it's if the work sits on a shelf, then you're not accomplishing the mission. You know, final mile of the mission is having the work that you've done affect some change that improves people's -- you know, improves people's lives. And if nobody knows about the work, then it doesn't do that.

So, like a funny story, before I became CEO, the previous CEO was a guy named John Thompson, who I adored and loved working for John and he was a great boss, but the one and only time I went into John's office and basically threw a tantrum was about -- I was head of Research Programs and, in August, we had three really important pieces of research pop and we had no communications department at the time because NORC had -- has always been this place, "Oh, you know, we're heads down in the work, we're really focused on the work." You know, and it's just -- make -- you know, going out and being a PR firm, that's not who we are. We don't want to do that. So, these three really interesting and really important pieces of research popped. And our very de minimis PR function was literally out on vacation and I had no ability -- because it is one person, I had no ability to get these stories out. And, so, I walked into his office and I said, "If you don't let me build a communications team, I'm going to quit." And it's the only time I've ever said that to -- you know, to a boss, but I just felt so strongly that the final mile of that mission has to be accomplished or we're not doing any of the mission.

And, so, you know, what also came out of that is, for a while there in that role when I would sit down with a group of staff to talk about a project, my first question wouldn't be, you know, "So, where is this deliverable" or "how is the budget doing" or "how did that meeting go with the client" or, you know, "were you able to hire that person." You know, all important things. But my first question, I just -- I made it a stylized point of doing this is I'd look at them and I'd say, "What have you done in the past two weeks to make people aware of the important work you're doing?" And, you know, it started with them kind of sitting back in their chairs and going, "Why the heck is he asking us this?" Right? But as they got used to the question, they realized that they should probably have some good answers to it. And as they started developing good answers, they became really excited about what was coming out of doing that work, the outcomes that were being produced in terms of visibility. And, you know, it not only means that the work has more impact, but it also means with more people aware of the work that you're more likely to be able to do more of it. Right?

So, I just think that has been a really interesting shift for us as people have just embraced -- you know, as a bunch of, you know, heads down researchers have gotten more and more excited about the idea of, "Hey, yeah, no, I'm going to go and tell a bunch of people about this, and not just other researchers."

[PAUL DECKER]

Mhm. Have you detected any tradeoff in that evolution? You know, I think -- 30 years ago, I think people felt there was value to having distance --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

From the decisionmakers because they felt it was easier to defend their objectivity in that situation.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah, I don't --

[PAUL DECKER]

So, how did that play out?

[DAN GAYLIN]

I don't know. I mean, we are grappling. I mean, one of the challenges that we might have talked -- that I -- we -- I nearly got into as we were talking about sort of pandemic challenges is, you know, people feel deeply about the issues that they're studying. And they're very committed to this work. And they came to places like NORC and Mathematica because of the opportunity to work on this work and do it in a very meaningful and effective way and, hopefully, in a way that produces change. There's a fine line between objectivity and independence and activism.

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

And, of course, that's a challenge for all of us in these increasingly polarized times that the tendency for any person to start to feel more activist and "this is the right thing to do and this is what we should be doing and this is why and we should be telling people what's right and what's wrong," going back to your somebody's right and somebody's wrong, of course, the superpower of places like NORC and Mathematica is that we're independent and objective and neutral and we produce, you know, facts and figures for the American people and the world and, you know, neutral analyses. And it's not our job. And, in fact, if we stray into making this our job, we degrade that superpower --

[PAUL DECKER]

Right.

[DAN GAYLIN]

To say "this is the answer, this is what this means and this is the right philosophical position to take." So, you know, I think as people have focused more on putting the work out and making sure that more people are aware of it, it's certainly the case that they're going to get more questions and they do, like, "Well, doesn't that mean that X group is actually biased against Y group?"

[PAUL DECKER]

Mhm.

[DAN GAYLIN]

And what we've -- the way we've responded to that is to give them training, you know, media training, presentation training, that helps them, you know, walk a line that's like, "Well, that's a reasonable interpretation, I understand why you think that. You know, the evidence actually doesn't make that 100% clear."

[PAUL DECKER]

Right.

[DAN GAYLIN]

"There are ways we could probably try and elucidate that, but we don't have that here today."

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Right? And, so, you know, it's part of helping people engage in the substance of our work without turning it into a sort of confirmation bias scenario where people then seek out our work because it tells them what they want to hear.

[PAUL DECKER]

Mhm.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Does that make sense?

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah, absolutely.

[DAN GAYLIN]

And is that what you all are doing as well?

[PAUL DECKER]

Yes. And I would say -- you know, so going back to my original question, I would say what we found out was that the threat -- the potential for a threat to our objectivity just was kind of in our imagination.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Oh, really?

[PAUL DECKER]

At least to the extent that we've gone down that path to get closer to the decisionmakers that I don't assess that we've had any problems with maintaining objectivity in doing that. Now, it doesn't mean anything goes. We still, you know, are careful in just the ways that you described that, "Hey, we're calling the balls and strikes. We're the neutral observers making a call based on the data and we" --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Right.

[PAUL DECKER]

"Have to remind ourselves of that all the time."

[DAN GAYLIN]

Right.

[PAUL DECKER]

But it shouldn't keep us from discussing the potential implications to a decisionmaker that's got a specific decision.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Oh, I see. Yeah, I think I may have misunderstood the first -- that piece of your question. Yeah, I mean, I think that's perfectly said, Paul. And it's the same with us. Like, for example, one of our senior fellows just testified in front of Congress, the Small Business Committee, and, you know, the topic was crime. And he's a -- you know, one of the nation's deep experts on crime and crime statistics. And he's forgotten more about it than you or I will ever know. And he's 100% committed to just the fact -- you know, he's an unbiased, independent researcher. I mean, he has his point of views about policy solutions that will or will not work. But when it comes to presenting his research, it's all about "these are the facts, this is what we know." You know? And he was called in front of that committee and, you know, as you can imagine, this is a very fraught topic is crime. You know? And he presented a lot of really good data that is, you know, the established data sources that shows, "Yeah, you know what? Crime was really high during the pandemic. It spiked in many, many areas. And guess what? It's actually receding down to pre-pandemic levels in most places." Now, to some people, that may be a controversial comment. But that is what the data and the evidence show. Right? And, so --

[PAUL DECKER]

Right.

[DAN GAYLIN]

That's basically what he went and did in this presentation. And the truth is I'm happy to report -- because, you know, in this world, you don't necessarily always think this is going to be what happens, but the -- you know, the Republican-dominated committee embraced what he was saying. You know? I mean, they all took pictures with him afterwards, you know, because they thought he was a great speaker who really informed them. So, you know, it can be really powerful when somebody who is really good at their stuff, really knows the data, really hues to our playbook of "we're going to use rigorous analysis, we're going to be very transparent about what you can and can't do with our data, we're going to talk about the limitations, but then we're going to tell you what -- you know, what to the best of our science and capabilities the data tells you." You know? People will listen and find it useful and meaningful. And this was a -- kind of a clear-cut example of that.

[PAUL DECKER]

As you project that picture into the future, do you think the political polarization that we face now represents a threat down the road that is maybe their point where that -- your story, the polarization is so strong, it overwhelms the opportunity for that kind of insight?

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah. I mean, I think it is a threat and I think that that's sort of the dark version of the world that we could head to. I'm actually kind of writing a book on this --

[PAUL DECKER]

Okay.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Subject right now. I think the answer is -- I said half of it and then I'll give you the second half. I mean, I think the first half is when polarized voices say, "I don't believe your -- you know, NORC, I don't believe your data and your research and your evidence; Mathematica, I don't believe your data and your research and your evidence" is to, you know, calmly and dispassionately explain how we've -- have we stuck to the Playbook. You know, how we've -- you know, we've looked hard at fit for purpose in terms of which data we used and why, we've been very transparent about which data we used and why, we've talked about what the limitations are, we have made clear what kinds of conclusions it's meaningful to draw from this data and which ones are less supportable. And we've -- you know, we've also used very rigorous -- you know, the most effective and rigorous available tools in science to get to the right -- to get to the best answers. That's the first half. But the second half is I think we need to be really pushing. And this is -- there's a business case for organizations like us because it's all about why do people want to consume the products that we produce, why do people want to --

[PAUL DECKER]

Right.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Consume -- you know, there's all kinds of data out there and you can go out and consume it as easily as you can pull out your cell phone. Right? And some of it is incredibly cheap and easy to produce. It's also pretty bad --

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Or sometimes outright horrible. So, the question for people like you and me and our colleagues is, "What are we going to do and what are we going to say and what are we going to try and make happen in the world such that people understand why they should be using our data and our -- or data like it?" Right?

[PAUL DECKER]

Right.

[DAN GAYLIN]

What kind of questions should they be asking so that they're not manipulated or misled by data, but are actually being informed and empowered and their lives are being made better by data? And, so, it's creating these data -- the term I'm using is "data savvy skills," you know, developing them from an early age and the questioning that goes along with it and the ability to say, "Hey, you know, before I take this at face value and get all hot and bothered about it, before I take this at face value because it totally conforms to my world view, let me spend a little time thinking about whether it's any good."

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah, yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

And, so, I think that's the situation we're facing. It's no longer sufficient for us just to produce good data and good analysis, it's also our job to help people understand the difference between --

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

What we do and some of the stuff that's just more storytelling than anything else.

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah. We're -- we need to be the champions for evidence and we need to be focused, as you said, which evidence should be the one that guides us --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

Of all of the pool of all of the research that's out there.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Right.

[PAUL DECKER]

And I think sometimes it's a controversial -- that can be a controversial position --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

To take, particularly in a world where people say, "Well, is there really only one truth or do we all have our own subjective truths?" And those are -- one is just as valid as the other." Well, that's a tough position to take and then to say, "Now I'm going to use evidence to drive my decision making."

[DAN GAYLIN]

I agree. The whole question of evidence is starting to be debated.

[PAUL DECKER]

Right.

[DAN GAYLIN]

And, you know, if there's -- if the term "evidence" become -- becomes politicized, you know, which I think it is starting to become, then we have a problem. But, you know, I tend to be an optimist on these things. I think, at that point, the problem is mostly semantic. You know, it's very easy to take something that sounds wrong or bad because of what you think and then you then label it as bad. But as long as we can stay -- do what we do as scientists, stay dispassionate, explain how we got to where we got, why we got there, you know, why we understand that there are the others' point of views, but here's how this is different than that and, you know, explain the basis of our craft, right, of our trade, which is, you know, we're looking at central tendency, we're looking at what -- you know, what the most information in clumps of -- you know, of weightiness says, "Yeah, this is really -- look, there's no one truth, it's not absolute, but this is more likely the situation than this" --

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

"And here's why," and then you relate it to other things that people -- where people do feel science is legitimate. So, you say, "You know, look, if it's raining outside and the air is thick and the meteorologist tells you the barometer is dropping and that it's probably going to rain, you probably believe that. Well, let us draw an analogy for that to, in the social sciences, why. Look, we're not telling you we're 100% right. There's always a confidence interval."

[PAUL DECKER]

Right.

[DAN GAYLIN]

"But, most likely, based on the best analysis and data available, this is what -- the way it's looking." Now, you're not going to get everybody. But I think, again, if we start creating these data savvy skills earlier in people's educational history, you know, I'm talking junior high school --

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah, yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Then the probability that a conversation like that becomes a meaningful exchange as opposed to a shouting match I think goes up.

[PAUL DECKER]

My daughter would tell you that -- going back to the days when she was very young when she would ask me a question, often my lead in my response was, "Well, we live in a probabilistic world."

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah, it sounds like your daughter and my daughter would enjoy swapping stories about how annoying their dads were.

[PAUL DECKER]

That's right.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Right. Tell me the answer.

[PAUL DECKER]

Right, exactly. Skip the preamble. So, let me finish with a question in an area where you're clearly an expert. And that's on surveys.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Mhm.

[PAUL DECKER]

So, in a discussion with Mark Zandi recently, he was talking about the concern about lack of response to surveys. And he was thinking about it in the context of, you know, basic federal surveys that play into the statistics that we know well that are cited in the business literature. I know NORC spends a lot of time on survey data collection. Kind of how do you think about that issue for NORC and where do you think it goes in our future for how we think about collecting data?

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah. Okay. Again, want to be careful not to go too long -- be very too longwinded on this --

[PAUL DECKER]

Right.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Question. The first thing to say is that actually, relative to people at NORC, I'm not sure the label of me as a survey expert is a fair one.

[PAUL DECKER]

Okay.

[DAN GAYLIN]

I'm a person who's used surveys in a lot of my research and is familiar, you know, based on part of my time in HHL and my research with a lot of different survey datasets. But, you know, when it comes to the sort of art and science of managing and organizing and creating really good survey datasets, there are people at NORC who have forgotten more about it than I know.

[PAUL DECKER]

Fair.

[DAN GAYLIN]

But, yes, as the person leading the organization, I have to have a really good working knowledge of those topics. And what I think is interesting about the situation with surveys generally is that 10 or 15 years ago we were very convinced that surveys would be a very marginal part of our business and of what the federal government would be paying for. And what we found is actually the opposite, that while we've been able to grow many other different parts of our business more rapidly, you know, surveys are not growing as rapidly as some other methods and techniques because there's so much data out there and there's so many different types of data you can bring to bear to solve some of the questions -- to answer some of the questions that our clients pose, you get huge proliferation in that kind of work, but the robustness with which the survey research portfolio has grown at sort of surprised us, in a good way. And I think, you know, what that says is that surveys still very much have their place. They are never going to be as predominant as they once were as the source of information for public policy and -- you know, and government tracking of various programs. And that's simply because there are so many other datasets and the --

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Tools and ability to manage those datasets have grown and increased over time. So, not is predominant, but there are still certain use cases where the survey is going to be the best way to do it. And we -- you know, we kind of love that because it gets to the whole fit for purpose, you know, question that we talked about a little earlier. It's, "What is the best data available to answer the question at hand effectively and efficiently?" And sometimes it's a survey dataset, sometimes it's an administrative dataset, sometimes it's -- you know, it's claims data, some -- it can be any kind of data. Sometimes it's the combination --

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Of those data and the sum of those parts is much greater -- the whole is much greater than the sum of those parts. So, that world that we've evolved into where, you know, all -- data is data, it all has strengths and limitations and we bring it together to create effective answers is a really good one. In terms of like getting specific about that, I mean, let's take an example of energy use. Right? So, you know, before smart meters, we didn't have really good ways of knowing what kind of energy people used. And one of the ways that was used substantially in this area was to actually ask people, you know, "How much energy have you been using," which --

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Not perfect.

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

But if that -- right? Now a smart meter gives you bit perfect data --

[PAUL DECKER]

Right.

[DAN GAYLIN]

On exactly what the energy use of a household is. Well, and credit card data will tell you whether or not people are buying green technology. So, you don't really need a survey for that either. But what neither one of those data sources will tell you is whether or not you're likely to buy an electric car in the next five years or what your views are about a policy that's going to require more electric cars or whether or not you'd be willing to have a wind farm, you know, in a field that's part of your community. Those are things you have to ask people about with a survey.

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah, there's always a deeper question --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

Customized knowledge, a certain group you want to talk to.

[DAN GAYLIN]

That's right. So, I think it's a really -- I mean -- you know, I don't mean to sound like -- demean it, but it's a really fun time --

[PAUL DECKER]

Yeah.

[DAN GAYLIN]

For people like us and the people we work with because you just -- you get to sit there and look around and say, "What are the best data sources I can use to answer this question?"

[PAUL DECKER]

And I share your excitement about the situation we face where we have lots of sources of data --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

These days. And the beginning of any research study these days is figuring out what's the right combination --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah. What data asset are we going to deploy --

[PAUL DECKER]

Exactly.

[DAN GAYLIN]

To get a good solution.

[PAUL DECKER]

And what combination of data assets to get the richest --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah.

[PAUL DECKER]

Findings, insights that we can out of the work?

[DAN GAYLIN]

Yeah, for sure.

[PAUL DECKER]

Well, this has been great, Dan. I appreciate your --

[DAN GAYLIN]

Likewise. It's a real pleasure.

[PAUL DECKER]

Taking the time to have this conversation and I appreciate your insights.

[DAN GAYLIN]

Thanks so much. Thanks for having me.

[J.B. WOGAN]

Thanks to Paul Decker and Dan Gaylin for a rich conversation and thank you for listening to On the Evidence, the Mathematica podcast. This episode was produced by the inimitable Rick Stoddard. If you liked this episode, please consider leaving us a rating and review wherever you listen to podcasts. To catch future episodes, subscribe at mathematica.org/ontheevidence.