A social network analysis of how

think-tank researchers produce

policy relevant social science
JORDAN SOUKIAS TCHILINGIRIAN
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
FITZWILLIAM COLLEGE
JST35@CAM.AC.UK

The rise of the think-tank

1960s - term gains popularity in
the USA
Late 70s early 90s the term
gains popularity in the UK
Mid 90s onwards the
globalisation of think-tanks

Publications ( including non-academic ) with think-tank in

the title 1900-2008 from Google N Gram

Tallies mask a fundamental problem

According to McGann the United Kingdom has 287
think-tanks

BUT..
There are about 6 think-tanks [in the UK] arent
there? Us and a couple more.
Senior Researcher, Centre Left 1.

Dilemma of definitions.What are they?

Why do they exist? What role do they
preform?
Most researchers would agree that think-tanks have gained
important roles both in policy networks and in the public debate.
But who do they belong to?
Academiaand therefore benevolent
Political partyand therefore sinister peddlers of ideology
Advocacy organisation
Commercial interestscorporate stooges and agents of
neoliberalism?
Is their output subject to quality control?
Who has paid for the research (cognitive autonomy)
The think-tank is a murky object (Medvetz, 2012)

A Space Between Fields

A think-tank = a struggle
Each think-tank is caught in an endless cycle of separation and
attachment...never fully detaching from its academic, political,
and business parents because each association supplies a form
of authority that makes its putative separation from the other
institutions appear credible...[neither can a think-tank] simply
become a university, an advocacy group, a business, or a media
organ, since to do so would be to nullify its distinctiveness... by
its own account, a think-tank is more academic than a
lobbying firm, more entrepreneurial than a university, more
political than a business, and so on.
Medvetz (2012 p.27)

Research interests: The rise of think-tanks and.

the decline of the public authoritative intellectual (Furedi, 2006)or the transformation

and the rise of new modes of public intellectualism (Baert, 2012; Bauman, 1989)
a potential case study of knowledge brokers (Meyer, 2010; Osborne, 2004)
the transformation of expertise (Beck, 1992; Collins and Evans, 2002)
the marginalisation of academics in public life and power (Halsey, 1992; Griffiths, 2009)
the move to Mode 2 (social) science (Gibbons et al 1994; Nowotny et al 2003)
corporate interests in policy making and new expressions of the elite power network

(Burris, 2008)
The journeys of evidence into policy (Smith, 2013)

Overview
Based on doctoral research of British think-tanks from the left, right, centre
and academic/no stated ideology
Focuses on
1. The British knowledge regime
2. the space of think-tanks as a complex networked space between fields
3. Individual think-tank intellectuals and the process by which knowledge
is inscribed, enacted and embodied (Freeman and Sturdy, 2014)
Due to time todays talk is structured from the perspective of more policyadvocacy organisations than the policy evaluation/academic think-tanks
.e.g. the IPPRs, Policy Exchanges rather than the IFSs, CASEs etc.

Social network analysis

Networks are more than lines and dots, more than fixed invisible structures
Crossley (2011, p28) networks are relations
lived trajectories of interaction between actors
have histories which impact both the anticipation of future interactions as well
as those experienced in the present
Therefore my research stresses:
Mixed methods
Favours notions of translation (ANT, Latour, Freeman) rather than network
flow (Borgatti)
Whole and personal networks

Methods

Research focus
Field approach = an abstracted symbolic
struggle/general picture
Medvetzs field is a purified space
Questions
1. What other actors might be at work?
2. How does a think-tank putatively separate itself in
actual interactions within the policy community?
3. How does a think-tank researcher create policy
knowledge?

A sociology of intellectual interventions

Focus on the networks which make an intellectuals work
public and the controversies they are enrolled into
(Eyal, 2010; 2013)
Positioning theory an interest in intellectual teams (in a
Goffmanish sense) and looser networks - both friendly
and hostile - that give life to a debate (Baert, 2011,
2012)
Both focus on products the things intellectuals
produce e.g. books, speeches, papers, lectures (also
blogs, art, music.even tweets!) has an ANTish flavour

Interventions
An intellectual product locates the author or speaker
within the intellectual field or within a broader sociopolitical or artistic arena whilst also situating other
intellectuals, possibly depicting them as allies in a
similar venture, predecessors of a similar orientation
or alternatively as intellectual opponents
Baert (2012)
Therefore we still have the benefits of a meso level
approach without relying on field theory. approach
follows Bottero et al (2009) & Crossley (2011) a space
of social relationships

Publication = Boundary Object

1.
2.
3.
4.

5.

Inhabits several intersecting social worlds and satisfy the

informational requirements of each
Plastic enough to adapt to meet the specific needs/standards of the
communities they cross
Butcan maintain a common identity across sites.
Have different meanings in different social worlds but their structure
is common enough to more than one world to make them
recognisable
Key to developing and maintaining coherence across intersecting
social worlds

An example of an interventionand the

skeleton of a network

Funder

Traces of intersecting social worlds

Academics

Civil
Servants

Other
research
institutes
Colleagues

Authors

Findings

Professions of advisors (2005-2012)

Sector
Public body (QUANGOs)
Local government
Civil Service
MP
Councillor
Business
Academic
Peer
Media
Think-tank
Not for profit/charity
Union
Political party
International governmental organisation/foreign
government
Public Affairs/Communications
Professional Body
Technical/specialist
Other
Mixed occupational background

Count
474
9
335
62
18
563
635
15
30
1076
550
13
34
105

Percent
11.2349
0.21332
7.94027
1.46954
0.42664
13.3444
15.051
0.35553
0.71107
25.5037
13.0363
0.30813
0.80588
2.48874

5
63
67
32
133
Total Count

0.11851
1.49324
1.58805
0.75847
3.15241
Total percent

4219

100

Raw numbers do not tell us much!

Quantitative SNA ..inspired by Kathryn Oliver
(2012)
Is there a core/periphery
Which actors hold advantageous structural positions
Who is central?
Who brokers?

Evidence of core/periphery
Advice Network
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Nomination

Advice network (core)

Characteristics of the core

Both authors and advisors mixed
Academics, ex and current SPADs,
Political acumen, policy experience and quantitative skills are all
valuable especially if all mixed in one person (e.g. IFS staff, Julien Le
Grand etc)
Hybrid space values hybrid actors not pure professionals
Vs.
So much research in these areas is pontification [lists academics]. They
are not really researchers. I mean what the hell are they researching? Its
just playing around with words, social scientists doing philosophy lite

A publication is not a true network

1. Publications offer a partial view of the think-tank researchers network
much like an academics CV
The inclusion of these namesreflect the importance of established
relationships as a source of credibility. Readers can use these names both to
ascertain the network in which a scientist is situated and to identify sources
who can vouch for his or her solvency.
Latour and Woolgar (1979/1986 p.210)
2. There are always more people being engaged and enrolled than official
publications reveal (Choi, n.d and personal contact)
3. A quantitative network simplifies a dynamic process by which
the researcher finds, reconciles, challenges and ultimately
constructs their publication (e.g. transfer/diffusion vs. translation)

What do these networks do?

Mike Brewer is the most central actor, but it does not

mean he controls the world of think-tanks

The Esme Fairbairn Foundation is the most

important funder does not mean their interests are

represented
Think-tank researchers are not puppets
Information does not flow into their publications

Tell me the story of..

Focused on one typical publication
Structured the account through three markers:
1. Inspiration Where did it come from? Ideas, funds
etc.
2. Development how did the project proceed, how
were ideas formed and conclusions drawn?
3. Dissemination

The dance of policy research

There is a bit of a danceit can be a complicated
dance at some points and there are grey areas
Director, Centreist 1
Its probably a fantasy, pure [intellectual]
freedom. If I am honest I dont think it would
work, it is good to be kicking against something
when you are researching.
Centre Left 4, Research Fellow
The dance is the creative process

Networks and credibility

an attribute which persuades others to believe and
invest in researchers and their ideas
(Smith 2010, p. 182)
Credibility defined by most interviewees through
language of mental health
Going mad, crazy, nuts, bonkers etc
vs.
sensible and consistent

Ties do not equal pipes or tubes and knowledge does not flow or
diffuse
Process of co-production, shaping and translation (Freeman, 2008)
Networks are not coalitions of the mind (Collins, 1998 p7.)
Ties = partial connections (Meyer, 2008; Strathern 1991) to
established professions which allow field distinctions to be blurred
Not just knowledge networks also tacit knowledge, sensibilities,
tastes etc

Negotiating credibility
1. Within the think-tank
- with brand
- with other staff
2. Funders
3. Other