Think tank information release channels are even more important than content-McGann|National (China) Think Tank
(Wen Wei Po Reporter Zhao Bo Author-Zhao Bo) News China News Gathering and Editing Network China Entrepreneur Mobile News Seeking Research • China Think Tank Network National Research Politics - Economic Information Research Think Tank • China National Policy Research Forum • China National Conditions Research Association • All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce Economic and Information Research • China Economy and Informatization Strategy • China Entrepreneur Forum Philosophers and Businessmen Dialogue • China Confucian Entrepreneurs Conference Winning in Business • China Marketing Planning Healthy China - Big Health Pharmaceutical Industry Forum Editing:
On January 22, the 2013 Global Think Tank Rankings were released simultaneously in Shanghai, New York and other cities. Since its first release in 2006, this report measuring the development level of global think tanks has gone through 8 years, and the number and scope of think tanks involved have continued to increase, and its authority and credibility have also been recognized by the industry and beyond.
Compared with previous years, this year's think tank rankings show the following characteristics: European and American think tanks still dominate, with six of the top 10 think tanks in the world coming from the United States and the rest from European countries such as the United Kingdom, Sweden and Belgium. The classification of Asian think tanks has been further refined. Asian think tanks are divided into three different categories: top think tanks in Central Asia, top think tanks in South Asia and the Pacific, and top think tanks in China, India, Japan, and South Korea. Among them, six Chinese think tanks are among the top 100 think tanks in the world.
The ranking was selected from 6,826 think tanks around the world, drawing on the efforts of more than 9,000 media professionals, policymakers, public and private donors, and think tank practitioners, but only one person actually devoted himself full-time to it – Dr. James McGann, director of think tank programs at the University of Pennsylvania.
Prior to his career in think tank reporting and rankings, McGann was an assistant professor of political science at Villanova University, where he taught courses on international relations, international organizations, and international law, and served as a consultant for the World Bank, the United Nations, the U.S. National Development Agency, the Carnegie Foundation, and other social organizations, and published several books on international relations and think tank research.
Mapping and Researching Chinese Think Tanks: A Dialogue with Chinese Think Tanks, National Think Tanks, and National (China) Think Tanks. In an exclusive telephone interview with this reporter, McGann said that he hoped that through the investigation and research of think tanks, the gap between intellectuals and policymakers would be bridged, and a bridge would be built between the two, so as to improve the level and quality of decision-making, enhance the role of think tanks in governments and societies around the world, and deepen the public's understanding of think tanks. Looking to the future of think tanks, McCann believes that the channel through which information is released is even more important than the content.
In an exclusive interview with Wen Wei Po, McAgan said that he hopes to bridge the gap between intellectuals and policymakers through the investigation and research of think tanks, and build a bridge between the two, so as to improve the level and quality of decision-making, enhance the role of think tanks in governments and societies around the world, and deepen the public's understanding of think tanks. Looking to the future of think tanks, McCann believes that the channel through which information is released is even more important than the content.
The difficulty is not that there is too little information, but that there is too much information
Wen Wei Po: There are many definitions and interpretations of think tanks around the world. In your opinion, what is your definition of a "think tank"?
McCann: In 1989, when I held the first Global Think Tank Forum in Barcelona, the term think tank was not accepted at the time, but more than 20 years later, think tanks are very popular, and I am very happy. To put it simply, a think tank is an institution that participates in public policy research and analysis, and issues policy-oriented research, analysis, and recommendation reports on key issues at home and abroad.
Starting from the definition of a think tank, in the early definition, a think tank was an analyst and participant in the organization of public policymaking. Previous studies only agreed with the first half of the definition of think tank, and I added "engagement" to it, but now the concept is rich and widely accepted.
A think tank may be affiliated with an independent body or established within a permanent body, but it may not be an ad hoc expert advisory board. Typically, think tanks are bridges and bridges between academia and policymakers, states and civil society, translating basic research into a language that is understandable, reliable, and accessible to the public and policymakers through their independent voices.
Wen Wei Po: The University of Pennsylvania's think tank rankings have a high reputation and credibility in the world, what is the basis for their rankings? Are there any trends in think tank rankings over the years?
McGann: Every year, we have an open selection of think tanks, so 6,826 think tanks around the world will be informed that they are eligible to participate in the think tank selection, which runs from May to December each year.
In the think tank nomination process, we will form a selection committee composed of experts, which will be responsible for the whole process from nomination to final selection. In the preliminary evaluation round, those think tanks that have been nominated by 5 or more experts will be eligible to move on to the next stage. In the subsequent selection, each judge will receive a questionnaire that includes 23 evaluation criteria, covering all aspects of measuring the strength and weakness of the think tank.
Subsequently, experts and industry insiders will evaluate these think tanks selected from 6,826 think tanks, and then determine a list of recommendations, and the judges will select these think tanks from 43 aspects. After two months of judging, the list will be handed over to experts from all over the world, in different fields, as well as scholars engaged in public policy research, for final scoring, and it is my responsibility to communicate with the selection committee and adjust the issues that arise. The final results will be released simultaneously in major cities around the world, such as Shanghai and New York.
This work may seem tedious, but I am the only one who is truly a full-time author. On a typical basis, I hire 35 to 40 part-time interns, and at the peak of the summer, up to 75 people do the job.
Wen Wei Po: According to the latest statistics, there are currently 6,826 think tanks in the world. In 2008, there were 5,465 think tanks in the world, and in 2010 there were 6,480 think tanks in the world. What is the reason for the continuous increase in the number of think tanks?
McCann: As you said, over the past 15 to 20 years, there has been a tremendous increase in the number of think tanks around the world, and there are five reasons for this rapid growth. First, the information technology revolution, the Internet and other tools have made it possible to share information on a global scale; Second, the monopoly of information by public administration has stopped; Third, many policy issues and technical difficulties have increased; Fourth, there is a crisis of confidence in the government on a global scale; Fifth, the development of globalization has made it possible to exchange information.
The emergence of think tanks is inseparable from the rapid development of non-governmental organizations. After the end of the Second World War, there were more than 50 non-governmental cooperation organizations in 1948, and now there are more than 200, and the number of non-governmental cooperation organizations has reached more than 130, and the number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) is even more numerous.
On the platform of policy exchange, participants are generally based on countries and regions; On the NGO platform, the main participants are civil society. For most policymakers, the difficulty is not too little information, but too much information. The purpose of the emergence of think tanks is to screen and discard, survive the fittest, and classify them, so that this information can be used by information makers, especially when there is a crisis of confidence in policy.
In addition, the pace of establishment of think tanks accelerates during times of social change or upheaval. The most obvious examples are a group of think tanks represented by the RAND Corporation established during the Cold War, and after the 9/11 attacks, national security think tanks in the name of counter-terrorism research.
Wen Wei Po: Among the top 10 global think tanks released this year, there are 6 American think tanks, 2 British think tanks, and one each in Belgium and Sweden. From this point of view, the think tank ranking seems to favor English-speaking countries in particular whether this reflects some kind of "hegemony" of English-speaking countries in the think tank rankings.
McGann: I think there are a few main reasons for this.
First of all, it is important to face up to the fact that 60% of the world's think tanks are concentrated in North America and Western Europe. Second, these two regions are relatively wealthy, and think tanks have ample funding and resources. Third, these two regions occupy a dominant position in world politics and history, and have had a tremendous impact on international political, economic, and social trends of thought for a long time. In addition, from your standpoint, think tanks in Asia, especially in China, are growing rapidly, but from the current situation, Europe and the United States are still the leading think tanks in the world.
I am concerned about the prospects of professional think tanks
Wen Wei Po: From the perspective of the operation model of think tanks, most of the think tanks in East Asia, taking South Korea as an example, are supported by government funds, and many think tanks in Japan are funded by foundations.
McCann: Whether in Asia or elsewhere in the world, the credibility of think tanks depends on their credibility and independence. If a think tank has predetermined its findings, or if it makes a report with serious biases out of the interests of its funders, it will undoubtedly shake its very foundations. In fact, this is not a new issue, and for many years there has been a debate about how to enable governments and the public to conduct more independent and scientific research on public policy issues.
Wen Wei Po: From the perspective of China's reality, many think tanks have been transformed from the original universities and research institutes. What issues need to be paid attention to during the transformation process?
McGann: The biggest problem with academic think tanks is that they tend to apply theory and lack a policy-led research framework. Needless to say, there is an invisible gulf between power, knowledge, and public policy. Through think tanks, policymakers hope to build bridges across this chasm. For academic think tanks, they must understand that the role of a think tank, or the purpose of its existence, is to transform complex and dynamic issues into texts that are acceptable to policymakers and the public through analysis and interpretation, rather than making them more difficult to understand.
Wen Wei Po: In terms of the development path of China's think tanks, there is a question of whether to give priority to the development of professional think tanks or comprehensive think tanks, what is your view on this issue?
McGann: It's true that there is a lot of competition among think tanks. Let's go back to the definition of a think tank, which is a channel through which policymakers and the public can obtain information. But for now, I am concerned about the prospects of professional think tanks. First, it is characterized by over-specialization, which is a dangerous way that ignores the quality of scientific research, is professional for the sake of professionalism, and does not pay attention to the connection with the general public. This must be vigilant.
Second, from a funding point of view, I don't think a think tank should be involved in a wide range of fields. Some can adopt an interdisciplinary scientific research mechanism, while others can adopt a group mechanism. At the same time, there should be two types of think tank experts, one is special experts, who have professional advantages and specific service areas and objects; The second category is flexible, interdisciplinary and integrated experts who work on topics that are not studied by the first group of experts and who maintain close links with other think tanks.
Third, I believe that think tanks should pay attention to balancing the short-term research topics that policy researchers are required to study with their long-term plans, and think tanks should take precautions and prepare in advance for what is in the interests of policymakers in the future. Finally, think tank research should be policy-oriented. The difference between think tanks and universities is that think tanks focus on policy research issues, while universities focus on academic-oriented issues.
Wen Wei Po: In China, think tanks tend to be problem-oriented. The establishment of a think tank to study a problem leads to the decline of this type of think tank as the problem is solved or the focus shifts. How do you evaluate this model, and how do you establish a long-term model for the operation of think tanks?
McGann: It's true that some think tanks face these kinds of existential problems because their research is too specialized, or their focus is too narrow. We must be aware that the world is changing rapidly, and new information and questions are emerging all the time. As think tanks, we can only keep catching up with these issues and changes to adapt to this changing world. Think tanks need to be multidisciplinary and multi-fielded, and they also need to allow researchers to quickly enter the field where new problems arise.
My suggestion is that since the existing academic institutions and groups are constructed and organized according to the traditional disciplinary setting, the problems we are facing and encountering often require more "popular" disciplines and methods to discuss and solve, but the existing traditional disciplines cannot cope with these problems. Therefore, I strongly recommend that think tanks achieve breakthroughs in the following two points:
First, the establishment and structure of think tanks truly reflect the characteristics of multidisciplinarity and modernization. Second, two levels of talent teams should be built in the structure of think tanks: first, professional researchers, who sit in their study rooms to conduct research on fixed problems for a long time; The second is to hire a mobile talent team to conduct research on emerging issues, so as to build a dynamic research environment.
Wen Wei Po: In your opinion, what challenges do Chinese think tanks face if they want to go abroad?
McGann: I've discussed this topic with Chinese scholars in Beijing and Shanghai. There is no doubt that Chinese think tanks are showing interest and determination to go global. However, in the world think tank community, it is difficult to have the opportunity to learn about Chinese think tanks other than word of mouth.
There are many reasons for this, but I think one of them is crucial: it is difficult to learn about Chinese think tanks through the Internet, which either do not have their own websites or have purely Chinese interfaces, which makes it difficult for many foreign scholars to understand their information through the Internet.
After all, global think tanks are highly dependent on Internet technology, and we have many international conferences conducted through Internet video every year, but it is difficult for Chinese think tanks to intervene in this form. If Chinese think tanks want to truly go global, they must invest more in information technology and thus build their credibility around the world.
A good think tank should have political depth and humanistic enthusiasm
Wen Wei Po: As the emergence of the new technological revolution has changed the way of knowledge dissemination, think tanks must think about how to disseminate research results in new forms. What changes do you think think think tanks should make in response to the advent of the digital and Internet technology era?
McCang: The big challenges facing think tanks today are competitiveness challenges, resource challenges, technology challenges, policy challenges, all of which can be summarized as "four more": more problems, more participants, more competition, and more conflicts. For a successful think tank, there are three challenges that must be met:
The first aspect is that think tanks are committed to serving government agencies, markets and other objects, and need more financial support. In our questionnaire, ask what the conundrum of the think tank where the expert is located, without exception, all require money. For knowledge-based think tanks, knowledge is also a product, it will flow, unlike physical products, which are illiquid, and 2 billion users are using this knowledge to create wealth.
The second aspect is democratization and decentralization, and think tanks need to take on more independent information and analysis work. Faced with the complexity of many policy issues, governments need think tanks to provide ideas and recommendations. The third challenge is the most fundamental. With the advent of the new technological revolution, the way of knowledge dissemination has changed, and think tanks must think about how to disseminate results in new forms.
I would like to give an example to illustrate the problem. Music, for example, appeared at the beginning of the last century and continued until the 80s. How many songs can you put on a record? Seven or eight songs, and then there were cassettes that could put up to a dozen or so, and then CDs that came up to 24 songs, and the latest iPods that could put thousands of songs. Tools are being updated faster and more powerful, and knowledge is being disseminated faster and faster.
The same is true for think tanks. What if today's policymakers stopped reading on paper? And how much of the news information can be downloaded to mobile devices? Now, when we meet in the United States, we don't send emails to introduce ourselves, we prefer to tweet about ourselves and list our opinions.
But Twitter also faces limitations: it can only post simple messages, but it cannot weave and deliver complex messages, and sometimes it has limits on the number of participants. For today's think tanks, what needs to be considered is to choose the release method according to the type of information released, and make it achieve the most ideal effect. From this perspective, the channel is even more important than the content.
Wen Wei Po: In the era of information explosion, it is becoming more and more difficult to find useful information in the massive amount of information. In this regard, what changes do think tanks need to make to adapt to the requirements of information screening in the era of information explosion?
McGann: When a world is flooded with tweets and superficial information, policymakers need scientific and rigorous information to deal with the complex and ever-changing political landscape.
The purpose of this global think tank report is to identify and identify authoritative and credible public policy research institutions around the world. Clearly, in today's world, where the volume and reach of information has increased dramatically, the role of think tanks is to sift through easily accessible and trustworthy information for policymakers to adopt.
Wen Wei Po: No matter how you define it, under the current circumstances, think tanks have always been a group composed of some professional and technical personnel, but at present, the situation of "masters in the people" is becoming more and more common, and how to absorb folk wisdom has also become a new trend in the development of think tanks. What are your thoughts and thoughts on this?
McCann: In the past, we had the impression of think tanks that only well-educated academics could work in specialized think tanks, and that they would be qualified to participate in policymaking. But the reality today is that not only professional academics, but also journalists, businessmen, and other professionals, have become part of the policy-making community, participating not only in the policy-making process, but also in the entire process of policy conception, deliberation, and promulgation.
Wen Wei Po: You have repeatedly suggested that in the future, the function of think tanks should not only be limited to policy-oriented research, but also include influencing policymakers, the media and the public on policy issues.
McCann: It's true that there is a challenge for the knowledge community that relies on academies and institutions to be aware of the tide of globalization and the power of technological innovation. The ways in which information is collected, analyzed, and disseminated are very different from those of the past, and social media is playing an increasingly important role in it, which is precisely the link that has been ignored or ignored by think tanks in the past.
In the United States, and around the world, many newspapers obtain information through the Internet, and newspaper reporters and book editors are increasingly relying on information on the Internet for their work. For think tanks, wherever they live, they must be aware that the world has changed dramatically and profoundly, and that the composition of knowledge and the way policies are delivered are very different from those of the past, and that they must recognize this reality and respond appropriately to this change in order to adapt to it.
Wen Wei Po: You said that the development of think tanks in the future will face obstacles from global hackers, anarchists, and populists. In this regard, what measures should think tanks take to avoid the above risks?
McGann: With the increasing popularity of new media communication channels, such as smartphones developed by Apple, it has brought new challenges to the development of think tanks. New media has linked think tank development to government. A small incident can often quickly ferment and trigger a "political tsunami" of mass protests and demonstrations, from Eastern Europe to the Middle East.
Therefore, think tanks must understand this trend and wave and help governments respond to this change. Think tanks should be aware that one of the main factors for this kind of "political tsunami" is that with the globalization of information, the production and dissemination of information and information have gradually changed from inter-state flows to inter-individual flows.
Among them, a group of people who have mastered information resources and can quickly disseminate information has gradually formed, I call this group "superpowered individuals", this part of the group has tendentious political ideas or opinions, is familiar with the operation process of new media, and uses inflammatory political views and discourses to influence the public, and their influence often transcends the borders of a country or region and brings international influence. Some are so intense that they can have catastrophic consequences.
The above factors have brought challenges and opportunities to the development of think tanks, which are faced with more diverse ways of information dissemination and more complex international backgrounds. Against this background, think tanks are faced with two major problems: First, what is the function of think tanks? Second, how should think tanks respond to these challenges and changes? I would like to quote economists as saying that a good think tank should have political depth, humanistic enthusiasm, openness, and a good scientific research environment, so as to achieve accuracy.
Think tank information release channels are even more important than content-McGann|National (China) Think Tank