Comments on: Think Tank Sociology

By: Henry

Henry — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 00:05:42 +0000

Have been remiss in responding here, but fwiw Medvetz does talk at some length about the differences between think tanks and their degree of wonkiness or lack of same – what he’s trying to do in a sense is to figure out what the politics are underlying the positioning of different institutions and people.

By: Witt

Witt — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 02:51:12 +0000

What a useful frame for looking at this phenomenon; thanks. Some organizations have lately started calling themselves fact tanks, an interesting attempt to (apparently) distance themselves from the connotations attached to think tanks.

By: Miracle Max

Miracle Max — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 17:49:31 +0000

I haven’t read the paper, but I would be leery of generalizations about the tanks.

Brookings, AEI, Heritage, and Hudson regularly exchange top-level personnel with Administrations. AEI and Heritage are also a parking spot for hacks out of office, though both do some actual research, in AEI’s case some of it not bad. Brookings does a lot of good research, while Cato does interesting metaphysics.

Urban Inst trades scholarly, wonky types with their counterparts at the Congressional Budget Office. RAND does wonky stuff but I don’t see a lot of migration to and from. By contrast, TCF, EPI and IPS (like Cato) mostly operate outside of the revolving door.

Many organizations (self-) labeled think tanks do no research at all, but provide a roosting place for unemployed Republicans.

By: Barry

Barry — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 17:32:21 +0000

One view of the ‘foreign policy community’ of wonks that I’ve seen in the blogosphere is that they are basically propagandists. In the case of the FPC, they are propagandists for the imperial project, so to speak. Given that viewpoint, O’Hanlon’s only problem is getting press; or rather, being able to get his columns and favorable interviews in print.

By: seth edenbaum

seth edenbaum — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 17:31:16 +0000

“The duties of [MEMBERSHIP] give rise to an elaborate symbolic balancing act that commonly involves signaling similarities to and differences from actors in proximate institutions. This self-presentation pairs an announcement of scholarly detachment with a tacit willingness to abide by the established rules of the political field,”

Removing this from the context of the sentenced that followed, how is that any different than academia? All this assumes that there’s some absolute measure of “scholarly detachment” and that think tanks do more than vulgarize what is often already vulgar. Donnishness is a form of vulgarized prepackaged curiosity. My mother and father and her first husband were all in grad school together. She was fond of quoting E.M. Forster on the choice between friendship or the state, and both my parents were convinced her ex had lost any claim to intellectual seriousness well before he went to work in the White House.

I’m more flexible than my parents were. Language is slippery and there are no Platonic forms in social/political life. If there were Laleh would have no need to mention Asad AbuKhalil or Helena Cobbban, and Tony Judt would have no need to through a fit in the LRB.

Note that this change need not be a deliberately chosen strategy; a Bourdieuvian analysis might suggest instead a more complicated process of adjustment between the individual and the field that she is located in (I’ll note in passing that I’m not a Bourdieuvian myself, although I find aspects of Bourdieu’s work helpful in understanding this kind of phenomenon).

So Bourdieu is MoDo with a data set. Oy.

By: Walt

Walt — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 15:07:37 +0000

Yeah, sk, you tell them. What’s up with these scholars expecting people to be interested in scholarship? I mean, investment banks have people who follow the publications in academic finance journals, but hey that’s just money.

By: Dan Nexon

Dan Nexon — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 15:01:13 +0000

“one prominent wonk whom I’ve spoken to suggests that Klein’s blog played a quite substantial role in building the focal point for health policy reforms around which Edwards, Clinton and Obama’s campaigns have converged (obviously, this is not to say that Klein’s blog is the only factor).”

Really? I find this hard to believe given that (1) all three employ health-care policy people with independent expertise and (2) their plans represent a convergence that already existed among the center-left prior to Klein’s blogging.

Your source may be right, but you also might want to consider the Bourdieuvian (isn’t tht Bourdieuian?) incentives that wonks might have to credit other wonks for prominent policies….

By: Alison

Alison — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 14:24:11 +0000

Here you go!!

I did a little preliminary research on this when I was thinking of thesis topics.

Rich, A., & Weaver, R. K. (2000). Think tanks in the US media. Press/Politics, 5(4), 81-103.

SHERRINGTON, P. (2000). Shaping the policy agenda: Think tank activity in the european union. Global Society, 14(2), 173-189.

STONE, D. (2000). Think tank transnationalisation and non-profit analysis, advice and advocacy. Global Society, 14(2), 153-172.

Stone, D. (2000). Non-governmental policy transfer: The strategies of independent policy institutes. Governance, 13(1), 45-70.

Stone, D. (2001). Think tanks, global lesson-drawing and networking social policy ideas. Global Social Policy, 1(3), 338-360.

Weaver, R. K. (1989). The changing world of think tanks. PS: Political Science and Politics, 22(3), 563-578.

By: Sk

Sk — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 13:26:28 +0000

“Even as they lay claim to an academic form of authority, for example, most report reading neither the major academic journals in their fields (much less devoting time or energy to publishing in them) nor attending academic conferences. Nevertheless, the assertion of scholarly detachment…”

What do ‘scholarly detachment’ and ‘reading…major academic journals..’ have to do with each other? Its a bizarre argument; you can’t be detached unless you read two or three specific magazines?

Believe it or not, there are other sources of information than Foreign Affairs magazine.

What a weird, insular argument.

By: Maurice Meilleur

Maurice Meilleur — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 12:46:10 +0000

‘[T]here are three forms of currency in the think tank world that make you a valuable player: bringing in money, getting press, and getting called to testify.’

It’s probably an obvious point, but it is so depressing that ‘being able to think’ and ‘getting it right’ are not on this list.

By: Laleh

Laleh — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 09:01:41 +0000

#6 and #7: In the blogosphere, http://www.justworldnews.com by Helene Cobban (a very well-experienced and well-connected journalist, Arabic-speaker, and Quaker) is quite a good (re)source for the Middle East. Also Abu Aardvark (though he is too happily “establishment” for me). For a hilarious radical anarchist reading of what happens in the Middle East, Angry Arab (angryarab.blogspot.com) is brilliant.

For a recent and mind-blowing book on US foreign policy in the Middle East (and a searing critique from the Left), try Robert Vitalis’s America’s Kingdom (on US-Saudi historic relations). There is also a book edited by David Lesch on US foreign policy towards the Middle East which gets all the people who are in the know and critical together. If there is a recent revision of the book, it will give you the best sort of background you might need.

For Pakistan in the blogosphere, check out Chapati Mystery.

By: greg anrig

greg anrig — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 04:44:24 +0000

#6 (and #7). DemocracyArsenal.org, which The Century Foundation helped to launch, is the best example I know of of a group blog focusing on US foreign policy from a progressive prospective. Our prospectsforpeace.com, which is Daniel Levy’ blog co-sponsored by TCF and the New America Foundation, focuses on US policy toward the Middle East. U.S. policy toward Asia is a rich environment that we will try to fill soon, though someone I am unfamiliar with may already be at it.

By: John Emerson

John Emerson — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 03:52:46 +0000

There’s quite a lot on the Rand Corporation and its influence on the university, for example Mirowski’s “Machine Dreams”.

By: K H

K H — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 03:49:42 +0000

Ack. I meant to say, “to #4.”

By: K H

K H — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 03:48:46 +0000

to #3: do you know of any good blogs for discussing US foreign policy, especially in Asia and the Middle East? That is one policy area where the mainstream discussion could really use some help. I read Informed Comment Global Affairs, and Informed Comment, but not much else at the moment that is especially relevant.