Think Tank & Methods

 Think Tank Methods - Concept

In this discussion post, we will discuss some key aspects behind the concept of Think Tank methods.

Image by Gerd Altmann - Pixabay

Background 

In their paper, Linbo (2016) listed a three-part definition of their interpretation of Think Tank. First, they alluded that a Think Tank comprises a corporate body versus an individual, creating a distinction behavior. Secondly, they established that the core output of think tanks must be an independent intellectual product where a collective of professionals with a staff equipped with professional knowledge and skills to create knowledge can do so. Lastly, they must be able to perform their core function of influencing the formulation of public policy. Literature has noted that defining concepts around “Think Tank” can be hard to pinpoint analytically or are distinctly empirical and tricky to describe as the term is used most of the time by the same organizations to establish themselves horizontally across different institutional fields (Hauck, 2017; Medvetz, 2012). 

Strictly considering Medvetz (2012a) that highlights how the image of “think tanks” alternates between two extremes, we can bring to light some essential concepts of Think Tanks. Medvetz points to the “thinker who occupies a privileged sanctuary of independent reflection” (Medvetz, 2012b, p. 02), the overbearing public intellectual on one end. While on the other, the “Intellectual mercenary, the undisguised lobbyists, whose high organizational position is merely a front to promote an ideology or a cause” is labeled. One interesting point Medvetz makes is that ‘think tanks’ have been using capital from other fields of power due to lack of own field of power to position themselves in these social spaces to overcome the entry barriers to the political context (Medvetz, 2008 as cited in Hauck, 2017). They guarantee resource survival by asserting themselves as propagators of ideas and play the role of policy advisors.

The concepts

Looking at Medvetz’s two distinct categories discussed earlier: the “thinker who occupies a privileged sanctuary of independent reflection” and the “Intellectual mercenary, the undisguised lobbyists, whose high organizational position is merely a front to promote an ideology or a cause,” we can deduce characteristics aimed for autonomy and influence. 

Image by Colin Behrens - Pixaba

This is also drawn from literature 

since it defines Think Tanks as 

Organizations with a claim of 

autonomy able to influence public 

policy by mobilizing research (Kelstrup 2016, 10 as cited in Kelstrup, 2020). Given that these organizations tend to assert themselves as disseminators of ideas, they may be inclined towards fostering a biased knowledge-seek culture. They may solicit funding from other parties who may as well stretch forward a hand of influence; however, staying distant while still in proximity of those guiding hands to ascertain a level of control to supply cognitive knowledge is of paramount importance.

Think Tank Models

Whittenhauer defines these models as the “one roof model” and the “without walls model.” The author makes more precise distinctions on when each is appropriate for use. When immediate interactive conversation may seem to be a facilitator to heighten the thought process, the former is an effective think tank method. As it implies, a diverse group of individuals gathers in one place, under one roof to deliberate. However, for those organizations lacking the level of funding that those with a one roof model have, the latter is best suited to congregate for deliberations. Nonetheless, both methods work fine with especially the “Without walls” one, which advances in technology and the internet and smart gadgets, in particular, can sustain better than a decade or so ago (Whittenhauer, n.d.).

References

 

Kelstrup, J. D. (2020). Introduction to Special Issue: Think Tanks in the Nordic Countries [Article]. Scandinavian Political Studies, 43(3), 129-144. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9477.12179

 

Linbo, J. (2016, Jul/Aug

Jul/Aug 2016

2021-09-10). Global Think Tanks and the AMI Index Evaluation System. China Economist, 11(4), 104-125. https://coloradotech.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/global-think-tanks-ami-index-evaluation-system/docview/1802590382/se-2?accountid=144789

 

Medvetz, T. (2008). Think tanks as an emergent field. New York: Social Science Research Council.

 

Medvetz, T. (2012). Murky Power: “Think Tanks” as Boundary Organizations. In D. Courpasson, D. Golsorkhi, & J. J. Sallaz (Eds.), Rethinking Power in Organizations, Institutions, and Markets (Vol. 34, pp. 113-133). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X(2012)0000034007

 

 Whittenhauer. (n.d.). Effective think tank methods. https://classroom.synonym.com/effective-think-tank-methods-5728092.html