Making two worlds through one mafia

Jordan Soukias tchilingirianDepartment of SociologyUniversity of CambridgeFitzwilliam Collegejst35@cam.ac.uk A social network analysis of how think-tank researchers produce policy relevant social scienceThe rise of the think-tank

Publications ( including non-academic ) with think-tank in the title 1900-2008 from Google N Gram1960s - term gains popularity in the USALate 70s early 90s the term gains popularity in the UKMid 90s onwards the globalisation of think-tanksTallies mask a fundamental problemAccording 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 benevolentPolitical partyand therefore sinister peddlers of ideologyAdvocacy organisationCommercial 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 struggleEach 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)

This is not just an organisational definition but frames how we should approach the production of knowledge by these organisations and their staff. To make policy knowledge think-tanks need symbolic and material resources.or capitalsfrom academia, politics, jounralism and business 6Research 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)OverviewBased on doctoral research of British think-tanks from the left, right, centre and academic/no stated ideology

Focuses onThe British knowledge regimethe space of think-tanks as a complex networked space between fieldsIndividual 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 policy-advocacy organisations than the policy evaluation/academic think-tankse.g. the IPPRs, Policy Exchanges rather than the IFSs, CASEs etc.Social network analysisNetworks are more than lines and dots, more than fixed invisible structures

Crossley (2011, p28) networks are relationslived 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

MethodsResearch focusField approach = an abstracted symbolic struggle/general picture Medvetzs field is a purified space

QuestionsWhat other actors might be at work?How does a think-tank putatively separate itself in actual interactions within the policy community?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

InterventionsAn intellectual product locates the author or speaker within the intellectual field or within a broader socio-political 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 opponentsBaert (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 ObjectInhabits several intersecting social worlds and satisfy the informational requirements of eachPlastic enough to adapt to meet the specific needs/standards of the communities they crossButcan 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

FunderTraces of intersecting social worlds

AcademicsCivil Servants Other research institutesAuthorsColleaguesFindingsProfessions of advisors (2005-2012)SectorCountPercentPublic body (QUANGOs)47411.2349Local government90.21332Civil Service3357.94027MP621.46954Councillor180.42664Business56313.3444Academic63515.051Peer150.35553Media300.71107Think-tank107625.5037Not for profit/charity55013.0363Union130.30813Political party340.80588International governmental organisation/foreign government1052.48874Public Affairs/Communications50.11851Professional Body631.49324Technical/specialist671.58805Other320.75847Mixed occupational background1333.15241Total CountTotal percent4219100Raw numbers do not tell us much!Quantitative SNA ..inspired by Kathryn Oliver (2012)

Is there a core/periphery

Which actors hold advantageous structural positionsWho is central?Who brokers?

Evidence of core/peripheryAdvice network (core)

Characteristics of the coreBoth 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 liteA publication is not a true network1. 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 puppetsInformation does not flow into their publications

Tell me the story of..Focused on one typical publicationStructured the account through three markers:Inspiration Where did it come from? Ideas, funds etc.Development how did the project proceed, how were ideas formed and conclusions drawn?Dissemination

The dance of policy researchThere is a bit of a danceit can be a complicated dance at some points and there are grey areasDirector, 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 FellowThe dance is the creative process

Networks and credibilityan 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 healthGoing 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 credibility1. Within the think-tank- with brand- with other staff

2. Funders

3. Other