What are 'Think Tanks'? Revisiting the Dilemma of the Definition

Juliana Hauck
{"title":"What are 'Think Tanks'? Revisiting the Dilemma of the Definition","authors":"Juliana Hauck","doi":"10.1590/1981-3821201700020006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"'Think tanks' (TTs) are 'sui generis' organizations that have been proliferating, playing more and more the role of very relevant actors on the political scene in clashes over interests, preferences and ideas for the formation of public policies. The definition of 'think tank', however, creates a conceptual gap that causes serious limitations on the development of this field of study. Excessive generality or inflexibility in the use of the concept raises questions about the validity of the category. Either way, the 'trade offs' of the conceptual choices have delineated a not very useful concept of think tank to both inter-contextual and inter-organizational comparability and to differentiate think thanks from overlapping organizations. The article revisits some of these dilemmas. To do so, the treatment in the specialized literature of the analytic category, highlighting both the insensitivity of the traditional North American matrix to different national contexts and its obsolescence to the changes in the context of TTs' action, including their own context of origin, is explained. In shedding light on promising conceptual contributions, the main contribution of the present article is the proposal of the radial structuring of the concept of think tanks as 'boundary spanners', as advanced by Medvetz, and of corresponding indicators to deal with the large variation in the substantive properties of the operationalization of the adopted concept. Thus, the aim is to reduce non-specificities in the analytic category and the dissent of its social significance, which demands less abstraction facing the exploratory state of the field of study.","PeriodicalId":159271,"journal":{"name":"Brazilian Political Science Review","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brazilian Political Science Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-3821201700020006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

'Think tanks' (TTs) are 'sui generis' organizations that have been proliferating, playing more and more the role of very relevant actors on the political scene in clashes over interests, preferences and ideas for the formation of public policies. The definition of 'think tank', however, creates a conceptual gap that causes serious limitations on the development of this field of study. Excessive generality or inflexibility in the use of the concept raises questions about the validity of the category. Either way, the 'trade offs' of the conceptual choices have delineated a not very useful concept of think tank to both inter-contextual and inter-organizational comparability and to differentiate think thanks from overlapping organizations. The article revisits some of these dilemmas. To do so, the treatment in the specialized literature of the analytic category, highlighting both the insensitivity of the traditional North American matrix to different national contexts and its obsolescence to the changes in the context of TTs' action, including their own context of origin, is explained. In shedding light on promising conceptual contributions, the main contribution of the present article is the proposal of the radial structuring of the concept of think tanks as 'boundary spanners', as advanced by Medvetz, and of corresponding indicators to deal with the large variation in the substantive properties of the operationalization of the adopted concept. Thus, the aim is to reduce non-specificities in the analytic category and the dissent of its social significance, which demands less abstraction facing the exploratory state of the field of study.
什么是“智库”?重新审视定义的困境
“智库”(TTs)是一种“自成一体”的组织,它们在政治舞台上扮演着越来越重要的角色,在利益、偏好和公共政策形成理念的冲突中扮演着越来越重要的角色。然而,“智库”的定义造成了概念上的鸿沟,严重限制了这一研究领域的发展。在使用这一概念时,如果过于笼统或缺乏灵活性,就会对这一类别的有效性提出疑问。无论哪种方式,概念选择的“权衡”都描绘了一个不太有用的概念,即智囊团的背景间和组织间的可比性,以及区分重叠组织的思想感谢。本文回顾了其中的一些困境。为此,解释了分析范畴的专业文献中的处理方法,强调了传统的北美矩阵对不同国家背景的不敏感,以及它对TTs行动背景变化的过时,包括他们自己的起源背景。在阐明有希望的概念贡献方面,本文的主要贡献是提出了梅德维茨提出的将智库概念作为“边界跨越者”的径向结构,以及相应的指标,以处理所采用的概念在实施过程中实质性属性的巨大变化。因此,目的是减少分析范畴的非特异性及其社会意义的异议,这需要较少的抽象来面对研究领域的探索状态。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信