Suchergebnisse
Filter
23 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
Ideas, Expertise, and Think Tanks
In: Ideas and Politics in Social Science Research, S. 191-206
Book Review: Strategic Giving: The Art and Science of Philanthropy, by Peter Frumkin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006. 448 pp., $39.00
In: Nonprofit and voluntary sector quarterly: journal of the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action, Band 36, Heft 4, S. 753-755
ISSN: 1552-7395
Think Tanks and Civil Societies: Catalysts for Ideas and Action
In: Canadian journal of political science: CJPS = Revue canadienne de science politique : RCSP, Band 35, Heft 1, S. 198-200
ISSN: 0008-4239
The Politics of Expertise in Congress and the News Media
In: Social science quarterly, Band 82, Heft 3, S. 583-601
ISSN: 1540-6237
Objective. Experts are increasingly active in U.S. policymaking, but what accounts for their varied visibility is unclear. The agenda‐setting and media studies literature suggest that experts are generally neutral, distant actors in policymaking whose products are made visible by Congress and the news media when helpful. This study examines how and when the intentional efforts of experts can also affect their relative visibility and whether a proliferation of expert organizations, as has occurred in American policymaking in recent decades, is correctly viewed as creating conditions for more rational, thoughtful decisionmaking, as some existing scholarship might suggest. Methods. I consider the conveyance of expertise among a sample of 66 public policy think tanks in congressional testimony and three national newspapers between 1991 and 1995. In a multivariate analysis, I evaluate what accounts for the quantity of congressional and media visibility. I then use a content analysis to examine differences in the nature of visibility received by think tanks. Results. Washington‐based think tanks and think tanks of no identifiable ideology have some advantage in gaining congressional and media visibility overall. Think tanks deemed credible receive more, and more substantive, visibility than those that are ideological and marketing‐oriented. Conclusions. Cumulatively, my findings suggest that more credible, staid, not identifiably ideological expert organizations are slightly favored by congressional staff members and journalists to provide guidance on issues and news stories. More ideological and marketing‐oriented sources of expertise, by contrast, are more relied upon to build support for ideas, either in staged congressional hearings or on the editorial pages of newspapers. Expert organizations can affect their relative visibility; the evidence is mixed on whether their proliferation makes policymaking and decisionmaking better informed or more rational or thoughtful.
The Politics of Expertise in Congress and the News Media
In: Social science quarterly, Band 82, Heft 3, S. 583-601
ISSN: 0038-4941
Objective. Experts are increasingly active in US policy making, but what accounts for their varied visibility is unclear. The agenda-setting & media studies literature suggest that experts are generally neutral, distant actors in policy making, whose products are made visible by Congress & the news media when helpful. This study examines how & when the intentional efforts of experts can also affect their relative visibility & whether a proliferation of expert organizations, as has occurred in American policy making in recent decades, is correctly viewed as creating conditions for more rational, thoughtful decision making, as some existing scholarship might suggest. Methods. I consider the conveyance of expertise among a sample of 66 public policy think tanks, in congressional testimony, & three national newspapers, 1991-1995. In a multivariate analysis, I evaluate what accounts for the quantity of congressional & media visibility. I then use a content analysis to examine differences in the nature of visibility received by think tanks. Results. Washington-based think tanks & think tanks of no identifiable ideology have some advantage in gaining congressional & media visibility overall. Think tanks deemed credible receive more, & more substantive, visibility than those that are ideological & marketing-oriented. Conclusions. Cumulatively, my findings suggest that more credible, staid, not identifiably ideological expert organizations are slightly favored by congressional staff members & journalists to provide guidance on issues & news stories. More ideological & marketing-oriented sources of expertise, by contrast, are more relied on to build support for ideas, either in staged congressional hearings or on the editorial pages of newspapers. Expert organizations can affect their relative visibility; the evidence is mixed on whether their proliferation makes policy making & decision making better informed or more rational or thoughtful. 4 Tables, 19 References. Adapted from the source document.
Policy Influence: Making Research Matter
In: Think Tanks, Public Policy, and the Politics of Expertise, S. 152-203
The Policy Roles of Experts
In: Think Tanks, Public Policy, and the Politics of Expertise, S. 104-151
The Evolution of Think Tanks
In: Think Tanks, Public Policy, and the Politics of Expertise, S. 29-73
Details on the Characteristics, Perceptions, and Visibility of Think Tanks
In: Think Tanks, Public Policy, and the Politics of Expertise, S. 221-232
The Political Demography of Think Tanks
In: Think Tanks, Public Policy, and the Politics of Expertise, S. 1-28
Think Tanks, Experts, and American Politics
In: Think Tanks, Public Policy, and the Politics of Expertise, S. 204-220
Works Cited
In: Think Tanks, Public Policy, and the Politics of Expertise, S. 239-252
List of In-Depth Interviews
In: Think Tanks, Public Policy, and the Politics of Expertise, S. 233-238
Political Credibility
In: Think Tanks, Public Policy, and the Politics of Expertise, S. 74-103