Skip to main content

Think Tank Models

According to Jezierska (2020), there is no universally accepted definition of a think tank. Instead, a think tank is often described in terms of its characteristics which means that in order to understand what they are and how they operate, it is necessary to first understand their influencing factors. The following discussion focuses on different think tank constitutions to highlight their varying objectives. Then, different think tank methods are reviewed to illustrate how they accomplish these goals. Concluding remarks summarize the main discussion points.

            Offering a basic description, Ruser (2018) articulated that think tanks are groups dedicated to performing research and designing widespread advocacy efforts. Medvetz (2008) enhanced this, generalizing that think tanks can be depicted as mechanisms for the gathering, organization, and assembly of authoritarian pieces of information put forth by political, business, media-based, and academic institutions. As part of the University of Pennsylvania’s 2018 Think Tank Index Report, McGann (2019) added that certain components, namely the operating style, research strategies, and adherence to academic standards, dictate a think tank’s ultimate categorization. In total, there are seven possible categories: (a) autonomous and independent think tanks that are self-governing and do not rely on the backings of any one interest group nor government aid; (b) quasi-independent think tanks that are separate from the government but influenced by their ties to the funding interest groups; (c) government affiliated think tanks that are formally attached to the government; (d) quasi-governmental think tanks that are fully funded by the government but are not formally attached to it; (e) political think tanks that are affiliated with a particular political party; (f) academic think tanks that are affiliated with a particular university; and (g) corporate think tanks that are for-profit and usually affiliated for a corporation.

            The categorization of the think tank, mixed with certain cultural implications, offers insight into how they operate and the types of issues on which they ruminate. For example, Hayward (2018) explained that government affiliated think tanks in China are bound to the bureaucratic ideals that were designed for conformity. As such, those involved are unlikely to pose unconventional ideas for fear of hurting their career. Additionally, the innovative ideas that do surface are typically stovepiped, which means that instead of being disseminated for outside scholarly debate, they are kept within the confines of the organization and only passed to those in positions of superiority. This dynamic results in a think tank that focuses on gaining funds through the spouting of favorable/accepted ideas instead of generating policy advice that might rock the boat (Hayward, 2018). Keudel and Carbou (2020) offered another example and described how government-based think tanks in Ukraine tend to heavily harness the power of the media to relay their research findings to highlight policy issues and make solution recommendations. It can thus be seen that several forces shape the operation of a think tank.

            Mulgan (2006) explained that the internal workings of a think tank can be thought of in terms of an intellectual ecology composed of three distinct resources. First is demand. Think tanks must produce a work output that is relevant to some type political camp, public agency, business, or civil servant. Second is the finance needed to pay employees, hold seminars, and host public events. Third is people, as think tanks need the minds of innovate thinkers. These three resources form a cyclical circuit where all components symbiotically work together (Mulgan, 2006).

            Given the categories and three-pronged internal cycle, both previously discussed, an individual think tank takes it foothold by defining the details that makes it tick, i.e., from whom are they funded, what issues are they focused on, and who are they employing. Furthermore, Goodman (2005) explained that pre-Internet-age think tanks mostly employed the one roof model whereby a diverse group of participants gathered for face to face interactions. Younger and more recently established think tanks tend to operate without walls and take advantage of low-cost and immediate Internet-enabled communication. Goodman (2005) continued to articulate two think tank organizational models: The Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA) and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). The IEA model is smaller, more generalist, policy-based, and does not require membership. As such, programs and publications are not shaped by any corporate sponsor influence. The ALEC model accepts corporate sponsorship and allows these sponsors to actively participate in meetings, activities, and agenda items (Goodman, 2005).

            In conclusion, Goodman (2005) summarized think tanks as idea factories that yield change-causing output. Although they both support scholarly interactions, think tanks differ from universities because they are goal-oriented and attempt to solve real world problems. Troy (2012) aptly called them do tanks for the action-ready insights they inspire.

References

Goodman, J. C. (2005). What is a think tank? National Center for Policy Analysis. https://www.atlasnetwork.org/assets/uploads/misc/chapter-3-what-is-athink-tank-goodman.pdf

Jezierska, K. (2020). Three types of denial: Think tanks as a reluctant civil society elite. Politics and Governance, 8(3), 152-161. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v8i3.3015

Keudel, O., & Carbou, O. (2020). Think tanks in a limited access order: The case of Ukraine. East European Politics and Societies and Cultures, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888325420937810

McGann, J. G. (2019). 2018 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report. TTCSP Global Go To Think Tank Index Reports, 16. https://repository.edu/think_tanks/16

Medvetz, T. (2008). Think tanks as an emergent field. The Social Science Research Counsel. https://www.ssrc.org/publications/view/think-tanks-as-an-emergent-field/

Mulgan, G. (2006). Thinking in tanks: The changing ecology of political ideas. The Political Quarterly, 77(2), 147-155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-923X.2006.00757.x

Ruser, A. (2018). What to think about think tanks: Towards a conceptual framework of strategic think tank behavior. Int J Polit Cult Soc, 31, 179-192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10767-018-9278-x

Troy, T. (2012). Devaluing the think tank. National Affairs, 45. https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/devaluing-the-think-tank

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Eastman Kodak: A Scenario Planning Case Study

  Chermack (2004) defined scenario planning as a process for posing and ruminating upon a variety of future trajectories. Such an approach sets the stage for strategic conversations as it enables key decision makers to engage in a dialogue about organizational priorities, goals, and long-term plans. According to Verity (2003), scenario planning helps overcome some of the weaknesses associated with traditional forecasting and its strict reliance on the stability of past events. Companies that recognize, embrace, and confront the concept of uncertainty, instead of assuming a more simplistic continuation of trends, are equipped with a competitive edge, and well positioned for future success (Courtney, Kirkland, & Viguerie, 1997). Moreover, companies that resist widening their lens to incorporate paths of potential ambiguity risk staying afloat during times of societal change. The following discussion focuses on one such company, Eastman Kodak, and after highlighting its early achievem
Post a Comment
Read more

The Prediction and Reality of Organ Transplants

  Hancock and Bezold (2017) clarified that instead of studying the nonexistent future, futurists are concerned with studying ideas  about  the future and operate under the assumption that the future is a moldable thing that can be shaped by the decisive actions of today. The following discussion highlights a prediction within the medical community that eventually came to fruition. The original idea is introduced and the history of its subsequent origin and evolution is reviewed. Concluding remarks summarize the main discussion points. According to Northfield (2019), Robert Boyle’s scientific research conducted during the 1660s earned him the recognition of being hailed as the father of modern chemistry. Although he is most known for Boyle’s Law and its explanation of the behaviors of gas, Keller (2012) also emphasized his forward-thinking visions of a potential future. His futurist thoughts were penned in a private journal and itemized as a wish list of possibilities which at the time
Post a Comment
Read more

Exploring the Collapse of Tower Records

As noted by Marks (2017), the “No Music, No Life” outlook of Tower Records, an international retail music chain, launched its brand into almost 200 locations and, at its peak in the late 1990s, yielded annual sales topping one billion dollars. In 2006, however, Tower Records filed for bankruptcy. The following discussion explores two of the external forces contributing to this demise, emphasizing the fact that deterioration sometimes occurs because of factors beyond the control of the organization. Concluding remarks focus on the relevance of the identified forces. Marks (2017) detailed the origin story of Tower Records and explained that it was the brainchild of Russell Solomon who opened the first location in Sacramento, California in 1960. While it started as a record retailer, it eventually grew to include posters, plants, books, DVDs, games, toys, and accessories. Stores popped up across the globe to respond to its increase in demand and, in addition to becoming a place to purch
Post a Comment
Read more