Previous
This chapter explores key questions about conducting research within student-led think tanks and includes case studies of successful approaches to research output and credibility.
How to decide what research topics to focus on?
Student-led think tanks often identify their research focus by recognising unmet needs or gaps within the existing policy landscape. Their missions, which define their purpose, also significantly guide the selection of research topics. The perceived relevance of issues in the near future can also drive the choice of broad thematic areas. Furthermore, the interests of the organisation’s members can play a crucial role, with individual members sometimes proposing and pursuing research topics within the broader scope of the student-led think tank.
Who does the research?
The primary actors in conducting research within student-led think tanks are the student members themselves. Some student-led think tanks have students that produce research outputs independently, while others have research leads that work with the support of team members. Their research activities typically involve producing various outputs such as blog posts, policy reports, and editorials.
How to ensure credibility?
To ensure the credibility of their research, student-led think tanks frequently employ internal review processes to check the quality of their work. Peer review is another common method, often involving feedback from team members with relevant expertise. Some think tanks have dedicated editorial bodies that conduct thorough evaluations of submissions, focusing on clarity, quality, and relevance.
“We prioritise the well-being and interests of our members by fostering an inclusive and participatory research environment. Members, as well as external contributors, are encouraged to submit research proposals and write articles on topics of their choice, providing them with an opportunity to explore issues they are passionate about. To maintain the quality and credibility of its work, we employ a collaborative peer-review process that incorporates feedback from team members with relevant expertise, ensuring thoroughness and accuracy in every output.”
– Generation for Rights over the World (GROW)
CASE STUDY:
At the Student Think Tank for Europe-Asia Relations (STEAR), research topics are broad and varied, with team members from all over the globe. Some members work independently and produce outputs according to their own topics of interest, while others are in working groups that focus on specific topics. STEAR has an Editorial Office that conducts double peer-reviews and evaluates the clarity, quality, and relevance of submissions, working with authors to ensure high research standards. Their members are from 33 different countries, and they have published 75+ blogs, and have garnered 550+ participants at their events.
CASE STUDY:
Epis Think Tank defined foreign affairs and security policy as their main topic due to the idea of it being more relevant in the upcoming years. Specific topics of their publications are chosen by the authors which combine the specific interest region/topic with their main topic. EPIS is neutral and has no standpoint to influence other than to bring the attention to foreign affairs and security policies and the important role of the future generation to engage, enact and connect.
Further reading: