Advertisement

How Thinking Takes Place in Think Tanks

  • Marcos González HernandoEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Science, Knowledge and Policy book series (SKP)

Abstract

This chapter discusses relevant literature on think tanks and intellectuals, with two main objectives. Firstly, it seeks to advance current theories on think tanks, especially in conversation with three approaches: Thomas Medvetz’s Bourdieusian framework; the sociology of intellectuals and knowledge; and Neoinstitutionalism. Secondly, based on the above, this chapter introduces the research methodology employed throughout the rest of this book, which analyses think tanks through their public interventions. By following these interventions, the book traces how a think tank’s narrative of events vary across time and within the organisation, in the context of a rapidly shifting policy debate.

References

  1. Abelson, D. (2002). Do think tanks matter? Opportunities, constraints and incentives for think tanks in Canada and the United States. Global Society, 14(2), 213–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aberbach, J., & Rockman, B. (2002). Conducting and coding elite interviews. PS: Political Science & Politics, 35(4), 673–676.Google Scholar
  3. Atkinson, P., & Coffey, A. (2004). Analysing documentary realities. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (pp. 56–75). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Austin, J. (1961). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  5. Baert, P. (2012). Positioning theory and intellectual interventions. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 42(3), 304–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baert, P. (2015). The existentialist moment: The rise of Sartre as a public intellectual. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  7. Baert, P., & Morgan, M. (2015). Conflict in the academy: A study in the sociology of intellectuals. London: Palgrave Pivot.Google Scholar
  8. Benson, R. (1999). Field theory in comparative context: A new paradigm for media studies. Theory & Society, 28(3), 463–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bloor, D. (1991 [1976]). Knowledge and social imagery. Chicago: University of Chicago press.Google Scholar
  10. Boje, D. (2001). Narrative methods for organizational and communication research. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boswell, C. (2008). The political functions of expert knowledge: Knowledge and legitimation in European Union immigration policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(4), 471–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boswell, C. (2009). The political uses of expert knowledge: Immigration policy and social research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  14. Bourdieu, P. (1990). Homo academicus. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Bourdieu, P. (1996 [1992]). The rules of art: Genesis and structure of the literary field. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Bourdieu, P. (2000). Les structures sociales de l’économie. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.Google Scholar
  17. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Bowen, G. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Calhoun, C. (1995). Critical social theory: Culture, history and the challenge of difference. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  20. Cockett, R. (1995). Thinking the unthinkable: Think tanks and the economic counter-revolution 1931–1983. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  21. Couldry, N. (2003). Media meta-capital: Extending the range of Bourdieu’s field theory. Theory & Society, 32(5/6), 653–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dean, M. (2012). Rethinking neoliberalism. Journal of Sociology, 50(2), 150–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Denham, A., & Garnett, M. (2006). What works? British think tanks and the end of ideology. Political Quarterly, 77(2), 156–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dexter, L. (2006). Elite and specialized interviewing. Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
  25. DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (Eds.). (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  26. Dobry, M. (2009). Sociologie des crises politiques. Paris: Science Po, Les Presses.Google Scholar
  27. Emirbayer, M., & Johnson, V. (2008). Bourdieu and organizational analysis. Theory & Society, 37, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Eyal, G., & Buchholz, L. (2010). From the sociology of intellectuals to the sociology of interventions. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 117–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Eyal, G., & Levy, M. (2013). Economic indicators as public interventions. In T. Mata & S. Medema (Eds.), The economist as public intellectual (pp. 220–253). London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Fischer, F., & Gottweis, H. (2012). The argumentative turn revisited: Public policy as communicative practice. London: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fleck, L. (1979 [1935]). The genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  32. Gramsci. A. (1999 [1971]). Selections from the prison notebooks. London: Elecbooks.Google Scholar
  33. Geertz, C. (1977). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  34. González Hernando, M., & Baert, P. (forthcoming). Collectives of intellectuals: Their cohesiveness, accountability, and who can speak on their behalf. The Sociological Review.Google Scholar
  35. Gorski, P. (Ed.). (2013). Bourdieu and historical analysis. London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Guy Peters, B. (2012). Institutional theory in political science. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  37. Haas, E. (1989). Do regimes matter? Epistemic communities and evolving policies to control Mediterranean pollution. International Organisation, 43(3), 377–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hall, P. A. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Harvey, W. (2011). Strategies for conducting elite interviews. Qualitative Research, 11(4), 431–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hay, C. (2011). Ideas and the construction of interest. In D. Béland & R. Cox (Eds.), Ideas and politics in social science research (pp. 65–82). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Hilgartner, S. (2000). Science on stage: Expert advice as public drama. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Jasanoff, S. (1995). Science at the bar: Law, science, and technology in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Kay, L., Smith, K., & Torres, J. (2013). Think tanks as research mediators? Case studies from public health. Evidence and Policy, 59(3), 371–390.Google Scholar
  44. Kerr, R., & Robinson, S. (2009). The hysteresis effect as creative adaptation of the habitus: Dissent and transition to the ‘corporate’ in post-Soviet Ukraine. Organization, 16(6), 829–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kingdon, J. (2003). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  46. Klamer, A., McCloskey, R., & Solow, R. (Eds.). (1988). The consequences of economic rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Ladi, S. (2011). Think tanks, discursive institutionalism and policy change. In G. Papanagnou (Ed.), Social science and policy challenges: Democracy, values and capacities. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  48. McDowell, L. (1998). Elites in the City of London: Some methodological considerations. Environment and Planning A, 30(12), 2133–2146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McLennan, G. (2004). Dynamics of transformative ideas in contemporary public discourse, 2002–2003. Accessed 15 October 2013. http://www.esds.ac.uk/doc/5312/mrdoc/pdf/q5312uguide.pdf.
  50. Medvetz, T. (2012). Think tanks in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Medvetz, T. (2015). Field theory and organisational power: Four modes of influence among policy ‘think tanks’. In M. Hilgers & E. Mangez (Eds.), Bourdieu’s theory of social fields. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. Muniesa, F. (2014). The provoked economy: Economic reality and the performative turn. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pels, D. (1995). Knowledge politics and anti-politics: Toward a critical appraisal of Bourdieu’s concept of intellectual autonomy. Theory & Society, 24(1), 79–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pierson, P. (2004). Politics in time: History, institutions and social analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rich, A. (2011). Ideas, expertise and think tanks. In D. Béland & R. Cox (Eds.), Ideas and politics in social science research (pp. 191–208). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Ricoeur, P. (1980). Narrating time. Critical Inquiry, 7(1), 169–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sabatier, P. (Ed.). (1999). Theories of the policy process. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  58. Savage, M., Warde, A., & Devine, F. (2005). Capitals, assets, and resources: Some critical issues. British Journal of Sociology, 56(1), 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schmidt, V. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Political Science, 11(1), 303–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Scott, R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  61. Stahl, J. (2016). Right moves: The conservative think tank in American political culture since 1945. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Stone, D. (1996). Capturing the political imagination: Think tanks and the policy process. London: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
  63. Stone, D. (2007). Recycling bins, garbage cans or think tanks? Three myths regarding policy analysis institutes. Public Administration, 85(2), 259–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Swartz, D. (2013). Symbolic power, politics and intellectuals: The political sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. t’Hart, P., & Tindall, K. (Eds.). (2009). Framing the global economic downturn: Crisis rhetoric and the politics of recessions. Sydney: ANU Press.Google Scholar
  66. Tchilingirian, J. (2015). British think tanks and the production of policy knowledge: A social network analysis of policy intellectuals (PhD thesis). Department of Sociology, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  67. Viveiros de Castro, E. (2014). Who is afraid of the ontological wolf? Some comments on an ongoing anthropological debate. CUSAS Annual Marilyn Strathern Lecture, Cambridge. Accessed 20 November 2015. https://www.academia.edu/12865685/Who_is_afraid_of_the_ontological_wolf.
  68. Weaver, R. K. (1989). The changing world of think tanks. PS: Political Science and Politics, 22(3), 563–578.Google Scholar
  69. WonkComms. (2014). Taking the pulse: The role for evidence in the election debate. Accessed 30 October 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wI2Sv8mD-3k.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations