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

Modern Trends and Technologies in Education

       Brown et al. (2020) explained that the decisions of today are based on estimates of what the future will be. As such, it is important to identify up-and-coming trends and technologies so that futuristic scenarios can better be envisioned. This discussion draws from the collection of essays contained in the 2020 EDUCAUSE Horizon Report to highlight both a technology and a trend associated with higher education. Impacting forces are reviewed and concluding remarks focus on summarizing the main discussion points. Key Trend: The Economics of Climate Change Figure 1 . Climate Change Impact      Brown et al. (2020) articulated a medley of developing trends with respect to education, noting that teaching strategies and learning practices are impacted by social, technological, economic, and political influences. Regarding the economic aspects, it was emphasized that institutions of higher education are expected to meticulously manage their operating r...
Post a Comment
Read more

The IDDI System: Sociotechnical Plan

  Coughs and Sneezes Spread Diseases . This catchy slogan, which according to Dhand and Li (2020) finds its origins in the 1918 flu pandemic, emphasizes the most common route of dissemination for respiratory pathogens. For example, Xie, Li, and Liu (2009) noted that a single sneeze has the power to expel as many as forty thousand droplets at speeds up to one hundred meters per second. Once expelled, Stadnytskyi et al. (2020) explained that these droplets initially remain airborne and will then, via Stokes’ law, fall downward and land on nearby surfaces. The following discussion introduces the Infectious Droplet Detection and Identification (IDDI) system that is designed to locate and classify contagious-particle-containing droplets circulating within the air and attached to various environmental surfaces. The unique features of the IDDI system are highlighted, clarifying current limitations, and after motivating its purpose, both the supportive and challenging forces surrounding it...
Post a Comment
Read more

Methods for Group Decision Making

  The following discussion highlights two methods for group decision making: the Delphi Technique and the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The details of each approach are highlighted, and recommendations are given to help determine the suitable scenarios where each can be applied. Goodman (1987) explained that the Delphi Technique was established in the 1950s when California’s Rand Corporation was inspired to develop a method for eliminating the negative influence of interpersonal interactions during expert meetings for group decision making. As such, its ultimate objective was to generate dialogue and present a medley of vantage points that could facilitate judgements and ensuing policies and/or recommendations. Named after the Greek god and Delphi oracle, Apollo Pythios, whose skills at predicting the future were highly regarded, the Delphi Technique was given ties to an idyllic extreme of unquestioned wisdom and infallible authority (Yousuf, 2007).   According to Row...
Post a Comment
Read more