Abstract
Think-tanks and their researchers are located within an interstitial and ill-defined ‘space between fields’; a space both constituted and divided by the worlds of academia, politics, journalism and business. This liminal position can be problematic for a think-tank researcher’s intellectual credibility as they lack the recognised cultural and symbolic capital derived from being located within an established profession’s jurisdiction. The question arises, how do think-tanks gain intellectual credibility? Drawing on interviews with think-tank researchers, this paper explores how these interstitial intellectuals produce policy reports. In following this process, we find that credibility emerges from a complex web of relationships across established fields/professions. Think-tank researchers must engage in a complex ‘dance’ of positioning the symbols, capitals and interests of a number of professions. To maintain their integrity, researchers must try to keep in step with competing interests from different professions; at times aligning them, at other times blocking or obscuring them from one another.
Highlights
Think-tanks and their researchers are located within an interstitial and ill-defined ‘space between fields’; a space both constituted and divided by the worlds of academia, politics, journalism and business
The policy research and advocacy organisations known as think-tanks are one example of knowledge producing organisations which operate within such spaces, as they are located in an interstitial zone Bat the crossroads of the academic, political, economic, and media^ professions (Medvetz 2012, p. 42)
In contrast to previous studies of think-tanks, this paper set out to investigate the process of knowledge production and the networks British think-tank researchers use when producing policy interventions
Summary
Think-tanks and their researchers are located within an interstitial and ill-defined ‘space between fields’; a space both constituted and divided by the worlds of academia, politics, journalism and business. Drawing on interviews with think-tank researchers, this paper explores how these interstitial intellectuals produce policy reports In following this process, we find that credibility emerges from a complex web of relationships across established fields/professions. Claims to socially and politically relevant expertise—such as security analysis and terrorism studies increasingly take place at the intersection of a number professions and fields (Eyal and Pok 2015; Stampnitzky 2013a) These new sites can be conceptualised as liminal spaces between fields (Eyal 2011)—spaces between established disciplines which are shared by actors who claim to share similar forms of expertise, but who represent a variety of professions and organisations with differing goals, intentions, practices and judgements Some think-tanks display characteristics associated with universities (e.g. they employ numerous PhDs, and publish in peer reviewed journals); others function like social research consultancies, or are openly ideological and/or associated with specific political parties (Denham and Garnett 1998a; McGann and Sabatini 2011; Stone 1991; Weaver 1989)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
