Hans Gutbrod outlines some ideas that should be considered when thinking of setting up a new think tank. He argues that planning and learning from others are critical for success. And do not forget that management will matter as much as the quality of your research.
Posts tagged ‘values’
[Editor’s note: This is the first post by Hans Gutbrod, Director of the Think Tank Initiative. I’d like to welcome him to onthinktanks.org and look forward to his ideas and reflection on think tanks. Over the next few days and weeks we’ll also be sharing some of the videos from the sessions organised at the TTI’s exchange mentioned in this blog post.]
Bringing together more than 100 think tank executive and research directors from more than 25 countries, the Think Tank Initiative (TTI) Exchange in Cape Town, in June 2012 probably was one of the largest gatherings of think tanks from the global South held to date. Some of the substance of the event has already been covered, in various ways, by lively Twitter commentary. Short videos from the sessions, highlighting particular topics, will be made available in the coming days and weeks.
So what continues to stand out from this event in hindsight? Here are some personal reflections, not intended as a conclusive summary, but as points of discussion.
For think tanks to make a difference, they have to attract exceptional staff. Thomas Carothers, from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, has made this point. It is obvious, but not trivial: think tank research needs to be both substantive and hedged, smart and safe, and, on some occasions, cautious and bold. As think tanks trade on their authority, they are particularly vulnerable when making claims. Raymond Struyk highlights this risk in the first page of his classic book on managing think tanks, describing this unsettling scenario:
A report on a high-visibility and urgent problem is sent to the Ministry of Finance with significant flaws in the statistical analysis. These flaws are discovered by an analyst from another organization after the report has been widely distributed. The think tank loses significant credibility with the government and other clients.
Not many people are good at responding thoughtfully and quickly, while getting everything right. Peer review processes can prevent errors, but given the pressure, any first draft has to be solid, and review steps need to be executed with great care.
That means not only do think tank leaders need to be remarkable (and there were a lot of exceptional people at the TTI Exchange), but they also need a remarkable team behind them. The success of a think tank depends on building a deeper team, on recruiting exceptional staff, and getting exceptional people to work together. Core funding is thus critical, as it allows think tanks to attract and retain exceptional staff. Some innovative funding arrangements notwithstanding, core funding remains a key feature for the type of local research that can improve lives, because it makes high-performing think tank teams possible.
Connecting to Conversations
Even with great teams, unnoticed loneliness at the top can be a severe challenge: since the leaders of think tanks rarely engage peer-to-peer on management questions, their loneliness is often profound. With a few exceptions, leaders mostly figure things out by themselves, maybe with a board or their personal circle. This loneliness sets them apart from people in other professions such as doctors, accountants, lawyers, or even managers in the private or public sector, who regularly discuss and enhance professional practice.
Yet the loneliness can go unnoticed, since the leader of any think tank will engage extensively with fellow researchers and policymakers, clients, maybe diplomats, scholars from abroad, journalists, interns and students. After six years at CRRC, my email address book had accumulated more than 4400 contacts. Yet except for two extended conversations that Goran Buldioski from the Think Tank Fund made possible, I not once – not a single time – in those six years, sat down with someone else who was running a research organization to exchange experiences on how we do things. And to me, the remarkable thing was that I didn’t even realize, until the TTI Exchange, that I had not discussed how to run a research organization with anyone other than my colleagues. Bringing think tank leaders together helps to overcome this loneliness, and gives them an opportunity to begin conversations and connect.
Communities of Practice
Following from this, I think it’s fair to say that there is no fully established community of practice – defined by Wenger as a “group of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis” – for running think tanks, especially not in the South. There are some personal links, and there are well-established practices of research in relevant academic disciplines, but these are different from the practices of generating policy research with the aim of improving people’s lives – perhaps as different as physics is from engineering.
If policy research in the South is seeking to have a greater impact, it’s probably worth cultivating habits of sharing more, deepening knowledge and expertise, and interacting on an ongoing basis. These are the kind of habits that are well established in other professions. Patent lawyers, insurance actuaries, heart surgeons and project managers alike – they all set up a trade publication, ways of exchanging information, and they get together regularly, to discuss how to do things. The formalization is not all happy: there is tomfoolery in most jamborees, but if you only pick up a handful of better practices, tell a few peers what has worked for you, and identify the colleagues you will call for advice when things get sticky in the office, you serve yourself and the profession, as well as the people your profession serves.
In the case of successful policy research in the South, strengthening a nascent community of practice could probably go a long way toward making better policies stick. On our end, at TTI, we are certainly thinking about how to cultivate such a community of practice. We have quite a few ideas on how to do this, but welcome ideas and input from others.
This is also why I’m contributing these reflections here in this blog. Onthinktanks.org serves as an excellent aggregator for many of the issues that are worth debating in the community. To broaden the debate, we will be making videos from the TTI exchange available in the coming weeks, and hope they find a good audience. Check our website or follow us on Twitter.
In addition to what has already been published on this blog, do you have any other thoughts on what we can do to cultivate a community of practice for policy research and think tank management?
The Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection (JCTR) is a very interesting think tank. It does not just talk about evidence but also about faith. Its mission statement is:
To foster from a faith-inspired perspective a critical understanding of current issues. Guided by the Church’s Social Teaching that emphasises dignity in community, our mission is to generate activities for the promotion of the fullness of human life through research, education, advocacy and consultation. Cooperating widely with other groups, our Jesuit sponsorship directs us to a special concern for the poor and assures an international linkage to our efforts. We aim to promote an inculturated (sic) faith, gender equality and empowerment of local communities in the work of justice and peace and the integrity of creation.
Maybe they have a point. Research from North America shows that atheists are distrusted as much as rapists:
The study, conducted among 350 Americans adults and 420 Canadian college students, asked participants to decide if a fictional driver damaged a parked car and left the scene, then found a wallet and took the money, was the driver more likely to be a teacher, an atheist teacher, or a rapist teacher?
The participants, who were from religious and nonreligious backgrounds, most often chose the atheist teacher.
This moral distrust of non-believers is relevant in very religious societies -and much of the developing world qualifies as such. By combining religion (with explicit references to values) organisations like JCTR are able to award a certain degree of credibility to the, less face it, sometimes God-less work of the researcher -who will not believe it until it can be measured.
Orazio Bellettini and Andrea Ordonez, from Grupo FARO, have published a paper on translating evidence into policy in Ecuadordrawing from two policy debates: Fighting Political Clientelism at Social Pograms; and the Yasuni ITT Initiative Proposal.
The Yasuni initiative provides an excellent illustration of the relationship between science and policy influence that is often overlooked in the evidence based policy discourse. The assumption is that there is a direct relationship between evidence and policy. But this overlooks the act of translating evidence into policy options and policy recommendations.
This translation is not straight forward. Evidence does not include ‘what to do’. Evidence, or what we call evidence, is about ‘what is happening’, ‘what is working’, what is not working’, ‘what is the probability that something will work’, etc. In the case of the Yasuni, scientists offered evidence along these lines:
“Our first conclusion is that Yasuní National Park protects a region of extraordinary value in terms of its biodiversity, cultural heritage, and largely intact wilderness. This region — the Napo Moist Forests of the Western Amazon — has levels of diversity of many taxonomic groups that are locally and globally outstanding. For example, with an estimated 2,274 tree and shrub species, Yasuní protects a large stretch of the world’s most diverse tree community. In fact, there are almost as many tree and shrub species in just one hectare of Yasuní’s forests as in the entire United States and Canada combined. Yasuní has 567 bird species recorded — 44% of the total found in the Amazon Basin — making it among the world’s most diverse avian sites. Harboring approximately 80 bat species, Yasuní appears to be in the world’s top five sites for bat diversity. With 105 amphibian and 83 reptile species documented, Yasuní National Park appears to have the highest herpetofauna diversity in all of South America. Yasuní also has 64 species of social bees, the highest diversity for that group for any single site on the globe. Overall, Yasuní has more than 100,000 species of insects per hectare, and 6 trillion individuals per hectare. That is the highest known biodiversity in the world.”(Scientists Concerned for the Yasuni, 2004)
This is evidence of the rich biodiversity of the Yasuni. But there is no immediate policy action that can be inferred from this. A policymaker could decide to protect it or to build a road right through it. The decision is not evidence based (although, evidence of the rich biodiversity of the area can certainly influence or inform it) but value based. What do the policymakers value more, and why?
Are they willing to put a price to nature? If they are, then they will be quite happy to get rid of the forest if they can identify some clear monetary gains. What if they are not willing to monetize nature?
This is a point I tried to make twice last month: first at the Royal Society to a group of representatives of national scientific societies in Africa and then to the social sciences sector cadre of the Inter-American Development Bank. The point is not that science has no place in policymaking but that we must accept that values play a role too; and a very significant one.
How can think tanks deal with this? Four initial ideas.
Work with others: As the Ecuador case suggests, think tanks must work with other organisations which may be more comfortable with the language of values: political parties, religious groups, NGOs, etc.
Include more views and perspectives: Think tanks should stop talking about multidisciplinary work and make it a reality. One of my favourite things about the RAPID programme was that we were a fairly diverse bunch, each with his or her own views and values (at some point the research team was made of: an economist (Peruvian), a veterinarian (British), an engineer (British Asian), an astrophysicist (British), a mathematician and philosopher (British), and a political scientist (Malawian). Not just that, but we all had different class, ethnic, political, and religious backgrounds. (I am not sure we ever took advantage of it, though.) A friend recently mentioned that Danish think tanks are apparently dominated by men 10 to 1. I’ve never been one for quotas or affirmative action but it does occur to me that if anything can be done to encourage a more balanced set of skills, background and views, then maybe it should.
Appeal to values: Think tanks must make an effort to avoid over-stretching their use of science and instead explicitly appeal to values and other sources of power in building their policy arguments. What is wrong with arguing for justice alongside effectiveness? Or standing firm on certain values? The Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection (JCTR) combines their research with the teachings of the Church in their messages. (I am not religious but I can see their point.) The Occupy the City of London Movement has resorted to asking: what would Jesus do (about the levels of inequality that the financial sectors are fuelling)? I am not religious but I can get their meaning. The understanding of justice that the Catholic Church was built on is not unique to it -it is a universal value.
An interesting article by William Schambra, director of the Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal at the Hudson Institute, for Tactical Philanthropy that challenges the role of metrics in assessing what works and the effectiveness of interventions. It is particularly relevant for the current debate (is there any?) on the value of impact evaluations and randomised control trials in policy making.
The lessons of Bradley’s involvement in welfare reform were the reverse of what might have been expected. Metrics, the heart of social scientific calibration, have long been understood to be the key to successful policy reform. They are supposed to lift policy discussion out of the bitterly contested realm of political values and local, subjective viewpoints, and put it on the serene plateau of indisputable, objective, universal facts.
No such thing had happened in Wisconsin. Metrics were subsumed into the local political debate rather than the other way around. And a vigorous, face-to-face, fiercely partisan contest about the meaning of “what works” held Bradley accountable to its own community for concrete results, in a way that abstract measurement never could.
Unhappily, many foundations today believe that “effectiveness” requires detachment from immediate, hands-on engagement in the civic life of their own local communities, and tie their grantmaking instead to ever more elaborate, arcane, abstract theories and models. They’ll end up with numbers aplenty. But they still won’t be able to answer the question, “what works?”
We have all heard so many times that policy research is not value free. Some critics go one step further by claiming that impartial analysis is rather a far-fetched ideal than an attainable goal in the everyday work of a researcher. In the other camp, more ‘scientific’ oriented researchers claim that it is only about the scrutiny and the quality of the process. Once complied with certain standards, the research would certainly result into an objective account of the problem and the alternative solutions. Given that think tanks (and NGOs) have taken on roles that historically have been part of the state, it will be necessary for a code of conduct to be aligned to the one we expect from the state. The more the think tankers boost of their own impact, the need for their accountability is greater.
The accountability of policy research is thus an aspect that has raised many debates hitherto. Not surprisingly, many of these debates have focused on the way that the research has been carried out. The aspect of who has been carried out the research (who – not only with regard to competencies, but also in terms of values and personal / organizational history) has not been neglected, but somehow treated artificially (including one of my texts cited below).
In the spring 2009 I published an article in the International Journal of Not-For-profit Law in which I advocated for think tanks in Central and Eastern Europe to devise and adopt codes of conduct:
Think tanks do not act alone in the policy environment. Neither are they obliged to be neutral or free of ideology. Many in the region are staunch advocates of certain doctrines and concepts about the development of their own societies. The only position a think tank should avoid is becoming the advocate of a certain client, because that loss of independence undermines the impact of a think tank’s research. It is essential for think tanks to be explicit and transparent about the ethical values underlying their research work and advocacy. At present, think tanks enjoy a reputation as neutral transmitters of scientific ideas and policy analysis. This independence is their key feature well positioning think tanks to promote good communication between state and society. Likewise, the media is also keen on using think tank experts who they expect are serving the public interest.
The lack of a “framework of values” and rules for conduct for think tanks—among the most resolute proponents of government transparency and accountability in CEE—could soon have negative consequences. In spheres of policy where governments are hostile to such organizations, think tanks have to guard against attacks on independent policy research. Defining a proper code of ethics and code of conduct is a way to do that. Think tanks in CEE can only benefit from proposals in this article by being resolute in formulating these essential and overdue codes.
In that text, my framework of analysis included three different pillars: the ethics of policy analysts, the codes of ethics for public service in the transitional democracies of CEE, and the NGO codes of ethics in CEE. If one looks at the full text, it is clear that I have covered more the objectivity (impartiality) of policy research complemented by some organizational safeguards. No surprise then that the text is ridden with values that we should all strive for and calls for more to developed within the think tanks.
This time around, while I stand behind my writing and still would argue for introducing such codes as part of the institutional framework of each and every think tank, I would like to call into attention the second aspect – transparency (which could, but not necessarily needs to, deal with values. The Economist’s Special Report on the News published on July 7th, although focusing on media and not on think tanks, helped me consolidate my thoughts on this issue. In this report, Nick Newman, former future media controller for journalism at the BBC, claims that transparency is the new objectivity in journalism. This catchy line resonated directly with my recent reflections inspired by three real-life situations that involved think tanks (in CEE, but also globally).
Story 1: Over a period of time, a think tank shifts its ideological stance from a proponent of liberal (social and economic) ideas to a zealot for patriot-cum-constructive nationalist agenda.
How transparency kicks in here: I see a need for the think tank in question to put a timeline of its products and a short history/story of its development online. It should mark the change, even if it does not offer a full-fledged rationale behind it. Since analysis is not free from ideology, it is best to let the readers utilize the analysis and recommendations and decide for themselves if the think tank’s ideological change matters to them at all.
Story 2: Few years ago, a gifted and up-and-coming scholar received a slew of scholarships to attain a number of educational degrees from a donor. In the meantime that person became a director of a prominent think tank. Both the individual and partially the think tank in question are harsh critics of the donor – former patron in its current political commentaries.
How this relates to transparency: Not everyone knows that the director has received scholarships in the past. Without entering into any need for justification, the think tank director should simply put his/her CV online and make this transparent. Such move may even result in a higher sence of value for the criticism (since the person does not shy away to criticize the former patron). More importantly, it would allow the stakeholders of the think tank and the public to have a broader picture of the history and context. Nobody needs to make value judgments, only be transparent. (I treat this as if this was a case of conflict of interests.)
Story 3. Many think tanks in Central and Eastern Europe are operating through two parallel legal entities: a not-for-profit organization and for-profit consultancy. I see nothing wrong in this arrangement, especially in the light of complicated and divergent donor practices that includes one of the other legal forms.
[Note: Often the crucial difference is that the consulting arm will work for a particular client producing (at least to some extent) private analytical products (not available to the public, or only available through the client which uses them for its own advocacy, lobbying or other purposes).]
The public (not-for-profit) think tank produces analysis that is publicly available (public good) usually paid for by a donor or from membership fees and other sources of income.
Why transparency is crucial in this case: There is a web of intertwined aspects here. First, the public has to be aware of the duality of the brand; and who the clients and donors that are funding the organization are. Second, the donors need to know that there is no double dipping (often the two entities are staffed by the same people sharing the overall work and costs). Third, the clients have the right ensure that what they pay for on their ‘private good’ has not been turned out ‘public’ on the other end of the organization. Finally, if the think tank engages into political consulting, there should be clear bottom-line about who could appear as a client and who could not (simply jeopardizing the entire concept of analysis for public good). In my understanding, this bottom-line is context dependent and changes from one place to the other depending on different factors (level of political culture, the maturity of the consulting market and other…)
In conclusion, think tanks should do their best in insuring that the data and facts they use are from trusted sources and their analysis is as objective as possible. However, they should not forget to be transparent about who they are and where do they come. Even if at a first look, this information might seem ‘damaging’ it is always better for think tanks (as probably for everyone else in the policy/political arena). After all, it is better for think tanks to put out public the facts about themselves instead of someone else, usually with ill intentions, spreading rumor and gossiping about the same matter.