Although also humorous, this picture above does a good job of explaining this issue. If approval ratings are low and people are not believing what you say, as was the case of George Bush, it is obvious you will lose credibility. But think tanks don't really have approval ratings so their credibility has to be decided within other means.
Objectivity of thought and research is the main think that gives think tanks the most credibility. Although leaning a little to the right or a little to the left, the big 5 think tanks of Washington fall mainly into the centrist category. This is certainly saying something. It is saying that they are the most respected and their research is most used because people feel as if they can trust it. As Weidenbaum explains, think tanks must remain unbaised in order for the public to trust them.
While we would traditionally assume that objectivity of research means credibility, then the advocacy think tanks came around. Do these groups lack any such credibility? Thomas Medvets said "These 'advocacy think tanks' were less inclined than their predecessors to claim ideological neutrality as an underpinning of their credibility" in his book called Think Tanks and Production of Policy - Knowledge in America. This, though, makes perfect sense. If a think tank is advocating for a specific idea, of course they are not going to be objective and neutral. While they may lose support or credibility from their opponents, they were certainly gain it from their supporters. If a politician finds facts that support their point, he or she will likely use it without question. Whereas if it is against their point, they will try to rip its credibility to shreds.
Nationalpress.org explains in this article, "The biggest issue with think tanks is understanding and appreciating their biases beforehand, and then making your own decision on what to use, or how to identify them to readers." It then goes on to explain ways you can determine the biases of such think tanks...did they just get a big donation from a specific source? Is there existing material all leaning toward the right or the left? While these may seem obvious, it is definitely important that we look at think tanks credibility before believing what they have to say.
Dani
Dani,
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you that think tanks rely so much on their credibility in terms of staying relevant and respected. I too blogged on this same issue and shared many of your thoughts. I agree that the Big 5 and indeed "Big" because they tend to stay towards the center of the spectrum, although a few sway slightly from the center. Those think tanks that are on one end of the spectrum or the other tend to advocate specific issues. It is important to remember, like you mentioned, that these think tanks are not claiming to be objective. They admit that they are advocating for a certain issue, so that means that they are only going to present information that supports their cause. This obviously diminishes the respect that the information coming out of these think tanks get. However, I think it is important to note that these think tanks often have the most influence because they produce quick results, instead of the detailed results of the more central think tanks. This makes me wonder if policy makers are willing to sacrifice objectivity and quality for quick results that support their ideas. Many people have a problem with this idea, but I do not. I think that the fact that certain think tanks have more credibility than others serves as a sort of a policing unit for quality control. If policy makers use research from an advocacy think tank, they (and everyone else in Congress) know that the research isn't completely objective. It's not like anyone is lying and trying to pull a fast one past anyone. I think this is really important to remember when considering the influence of think tanks.
I really like the distinction you bring up between the concepts of "objectivity" and "credibility". Objectivity stems from the actual biases an organization has that is doing research. Credibility stems more from the public perceptions that are held about an organization. These are definitely not the same thing. As you said, an organization that does not claim objectivity can be seen as credible, as long as they are consistent with their stated motives and bias. If their audience still supports them, it can be said that there is a certain degree of credibility to that organization.
ReplyDeleteThe advice given in the nationalpress.org article is also a good way to approach these organizations. One has to always consider the source when looking at research, whether it be from a think tank or a university, the source of information matters. While the DC-5 may have established reputations, the other "think tanks" have neither the level of credibility or objectivity of the big five. These smaller groups definitely fall under the classification of "advocacy think tanks". They are usually nothing more than fodder for politicians to fuel their arguments or for soundbites.
The bigger issue is how the already objective organizations can maintain their credibility as the term "think tank" is losing credibility itself. If all these smaller groups that are picked up and tossed away are diluting to pool, how can the DC-5 maintain their voice?
I agree that in this book for the most part it sheds a positive look into these Think Tank organizations. But are they really all positive? I would disagree. This would be one reason the number of smaller Think Tanks has been increasing. Environmental groups such as Greenpeace have their reasons to argue against Think Tanks, so there seems to be more to them that this book couldn’t tell us. I said this a number of times but you really have to see who is funding this Think Tanks and why? Think Thinks could cost a lot of harm, because their voices have the power to change Washington politics under the wrong hands. I think the credibility of these Think Tanks comes from whom funding them, and their influence towards solutions in Washington. I like how you brought up George Bush’s approval rating and showed who that type of situation would be similar to Think Tank credibility. I guess if a Think Tank has high credibility that would mean politicians in Washington believe what they are saying. The general public really doesn’t know what these Think Tanks are saying, unless you do your own individual research into them daily. Think Tanks I would assume had more power in Washington decades ago, because there was a lot of policy passed that we all live by today. Today there is barely anything passed in Washington, because there too many voices with power that can’t agree on anything. Then again Think Tanks could be used a lot these days and that is where these politicians stand so strong with their good or bad opinions. Think Tanks are organizations that look into the future of the world and just not the problems of today. Looking at the long term effects of policy is VERY IMPORTANT.
ReplyDeleteCredibility comes from what best interests the public. As Andrew mentioned, I would say that over ninety five percent of people in America know nothing about think tanks let alone actively research their findings. So public credibility is given through the media, and some ideas are stronger for people than others. War policy has been a major focus this past few years since the country would rather deal with wars than domestic issues. So, think tanks that give out research that aligns with the masses' ideas are given more credibility since the media will push to the public what it wants to hear. So overall, the credibility is a biased view based on public feeling.
ReplyDeleteAnd we know politicians just mirror what the people want to hear (lower taxes, more freedom, go America!). So, when it is something that goes against public or partisan grains (which seem to be more interlocked these days), the politician will attempt to rip its credibility like you said. So essentially, I think that shows again that credibility is more in the eyes of the beholder rather than the objective criterion that the centrist think tanks wish to uphold.
Going with Nick's comment on objectivity and credibility, I think real credibility should not be separate form objectivity. Rather, I think credibility should come from its objectivity. We need researchers that are not afraid to tell it how it is, but that would require a change in funding policy. Take the shot-calling out of the hands of wealthy donors who want to address something they want over what should be addressed. Then, the researcher will not be as fearful to step on toes and create solid findings. America as a whole needs a dose of reality to address policy, and think tanks should help that charge.
Dani,
ReplyDeleteYou discuss an interesting topic regarding think tanks. From what I have learned these past two weeks, it seems that the credibility of think tanks is often in question. Many critics speculate that the policy interests of certain institutions are guided by their large financial donors. However, as Weidenbaum tries to debate many times in his book, think tanks’ policy foci and decisions are independent from their donors.
You seem to share this idea with Weidenbaum in your blog post. To paraphrase, you state that overall, the Big-5 are fairly credible policy research institutes because they are largely unbiased, centrist institutes. Although Weidenbaum describes the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) as centrist, James McGann, author of Think Tanks and Policy Advice in the United States, categorizes CSIS as center-left. Furthermore, both Weidenbaum and McGann agree that the Brookings Institution is described as centrist-left while the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and Heritage Foundation are considered conservative. Moreover, the Cato Institute is seen as a libertarian institute. Thus, I disagree with your statement that the Big-5 is comprised of centrist research organizations. Rather, these powerful Washington think tanks are rife with opposing views that scale the left, right, and centrist spectrums.
However, I do agree with your statement that the Big-5 institutions are considered the most credible and respectful of the many think tanks. This is the result of numerous factors; yet, as mentioned before, their ideology position is not one of them. Instead, the Big-5 institutions are thought of as the most credible because they are the most visible and are comprised of very influential and prestigious staffs, including former governmental employees and scholars, among others. For example, Weidenbaum writes,
“(…) [U]nlike most other think tanks, the DC-5 as a group have been influential in a variety of important public policy issues over a considerable period of time. Because of their visibility and stature in the policy-making community, they enjoy unusually close ties with important policymakers and with major media outlets. Many of their senior scholars regularly exchange ideas, formally and informally, with senior members of the executive and legislative branches.” (p. 37)
Therefore, it is the strong relationships of the Big-5 institutions with the media and the Big-5 staffs with influential governmental leaders that ultimately allow these powerful think tanks to be considered credible by the media, policymakers, and public.
After reading your post, I find myself agreeing with you and disagreeing. As Chris said, I agree with you that think tanks rely too much on their overall credibility. It is important for the think tanks to stay credible and up to date with the current political and social "environment" around them. I think because of the size of these 5 think tanks, they are able to stay neutral. They are so large that funding coming in from many sources and different directions allows them to keep their topics unbiased. Credibility should not be based on being biased or unbiased though. Credibility should be based on results and continual influence. To say a think tank that is biased is not credible, is almost funny to laugh at. This would be like saying Fox News is biased towards the GOP it is not credible. Although there may be some instances where bias has lead to non-credible results, most of the time they are on track without false results. For these smaller think tanks to stay relevant, they sometimes may have to focus more on the general interests of their investors, but that does not mean they lose credibility. People will consider this before using advocacy think tanks, but the credibility of results should not be questioned. I think it is important to remember that influence, is not the same as credibility.
ReplyDeleteYou and Nick bring up an important point on credibility. Objectivity helps in determining credibility, but it is not necessary. Nick expands upon that further, stating that credibility stems from the public perceptions about an organization. That is the right direction, but I believe it is better to state that credibility is often measured by public perception. Public perception is not where credibility “stems from”, but mirrors the level of credibility, since the end result is public trust. This difference is exemplified in the fact that people often trust sources that are not credible. Tabloids run false, undocumented and sometimes crazy stories that people all over the world choose to believe. That does not mean the tabloid is credible.
ReplyDeleteYou go on to explain how we should measure credibility. How should the public determine if a source is trustworthy? I agree with Weidenbaum that think tanks should remain ideologically neutral in their research. The press should be doing the same, however they are granted some measure of leniency in their mission to entertain. This is easier said than done. Even those think tanks that claim to be neutral hire people that aren’t. That isn’t an accusation, but an observation of the inevitable. While they may employ social research and analysis methods that ensure an unbiased approach, there is still room for corruption.
I think the answer lies in the think tank’s arguments themselves and the data they use. Unlike the press, the usual audience for think tanks is commonly an already informed group/individual looking for further direction on an issue. There is also duplicate research on many issues by several different think tanks. This situation provides a check and balance system and review process that, while not perfect, tends to push for honest research. As Nick stated a problem occurs when the term “think tank” loses credibility with the public. I wouldn’t take much for that to occur and we have seen a little bit of it in the Climategate scandal.