Garbage Cans, Recycling Bins or Think Tanks? Three Myths about Policy Institutes

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

89 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The phrase ‘think tank’ has become ubiquitous – overworked and underspecified – in the political lexicon. It is entrenched in scholarly discussions of public policy as well as in the ‘policy wonk’ of journalists, lobbyists and spin-doctors. This does not mean that there is an agreed definition of think tank or consensual understanding of their roles and functions. Nevertheless, the majority of organizations with this label undertake policy research of some kind. The idea of think tanks as a research communication ‘bridge’ presupposes that there are discernible boundaries between (social) science and policy. This paper will investigate some of these boundaries. The frontiers are not only organizational and legal; they also exist in how the ‘public interest’ is conceived by these bodies and their financiers. Moreover, the social interactions and exchanges involved in ‘bridging’, themselves muddy the conception of ‘boundary’, allowing for analysis to go beyond the dualism imposed in seeing science on one side of the bridge, and the state on the other, to address the complex relations between experts and public policy.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)259-278
Number of pages20
JournalPublic Administration
Volume85
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2007
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

think tank
recycling
myth
public policy
communication research
research policy
public interest
journalist
social science
expert
interaction
science

Cite this

@article{a8cfbc452fcb4b9a961cb670af377cfc,
title = "Garbage Cans, Recycling Bins or Think Tanks? Three Myths about Policy Institutes",
abstract = "The phrase ‘think tank’ has become ubiquitous – overworked and underspecified – in the political lexicon. It is entrenched in scholarly discussions of public policy as well as in the ‘policy wonk’ of journalists, lobbyists and spin-doctors. This does not mean that there is an agreed definition of think tank or consensual understanding of their roles and functions. Nevertheless, the majority of organizations with this label undertake policy research of some kind. The idea of think tanks as a research communication ‘bridge’ presupposes that there are discernible boundaries between (social) science and policy. This paper will investigate some of these boundaries. The frontiers are not only organizational and legal; they also exist in how the ‘public interest’ is conceived by these bodies and their financiers. Moreover, the social interactions and exchanges involved in ‘bridging’, themselves muddy the conception of ‘boundary’, allowing for analysis to go beyond the dualism imposed in seeing science on one side of the bridge, and the state on the other, to address the complex relations between experts and public policy.",
author = "Diane Stone",
year = "2007",
doi = "10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00649.x",
language = "English",
volume = "85",
pages = "259--278",
journal = "Public Administration",
issn = "0033-3298",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "2",

}

Garbage Cans, Recycling Bins or Think Tanks? Three Myths about Policy Institutes. / Stone, Diane.

In: Public Administration, Vol. 85, No. 2, 2007, p. 259-278.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Garbage Cans, Recycling Bins or Think Tanks? Three Myths about Policy Institutes

AU - Stone, Diane

PY - 2007

Y1 - 2007

N2 - The phrase ‘think tank’ has become ubiquitous – overworked and underspecified – in the political lexicon. It is entrenched in scholarly discussions of public policy as well as in the ‘policy wonk’ of journalists, lobbyists and spin-doctors. This does not mean that there is an agreed definition of think tank or consensual understanding of their roles and functions. Nevertheless, the majority of organizations with this label undertake policy research of some kind. The idea of think tanks as a research communication ‘bridge’ presupposes that there are discernible boundaries between (social) science and policy. This paper will investigate some of these boundaries. The frontiers are not only organizational and legal; they also exist in how the ‘public interest’ is conceived by these bodies and their financiers. Moreover, the social interactions and exchanges involved in ‘bridging’, themselves muddy the conception of ‘boundary’, allowing for analysis to go beyond the dualism imposed in seeing science on one side of the bridge, and the state on the other, to address the complex relations between experts and public policy.

AB - The phrase ‘think tank’ has become ubiquitous – overworked and underspecified – in the political lexicon. It is entrenched in scholarly discussions of public policy as well as in the ‘policy wonk’ of journalists, lobbyists and spin-doctors. This does not mean that there is an agreed definition of think tank or consensual understanding of their roles and functions. Nevertheless, the majority of organizations with this label undertake policy research of some kind. The idea of think tanks as a research communication ‘bridge’ presupposes that there are discernible boundaries between (social) science and policy. This paper will investigate some of these boundaries. The frontiers are not only organizational and legal; they also exist in how the ‘public interest’ is conceived by these bodies and their financiers. Moreover, the social interactions and exchanges involved in ‘bridging’, themselves muddy the conception of ‘boundary’, allowing for analysis to go beyond the dualism imposed in seeing science on one side of the bridge, and the state on the other, to address the complex relations between experts and public policy.

U2 - 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00649.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00649.x

M3 - Article

VL - 85

SP - 259

EP - 278

JO - Public Administration

JF - Public Administration

SN - 0033-3298

IS - 2

ER -