Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Think tank 2.0 for deliberative policy analysis

  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Deliberative policy analysis (DPA) is one of the significant developments in the trend of post-positivist policy analysis. However, the question of how to practice is a thorny issue hindering its development and dissemination. More particularly, the organizational aspect for the practice of DPA has never been well explored. Taking an organizational perspective, this article proposes a novel concept of “think tank 2.0” (TT2.0), which is designed to host deliberative analysts and to integrate the policy inquiry with public participation, deliberation, and dispute resolution. The article begins with a hypothetical example to showcase what DPA means and how it works. The following section presents a brief review of the principles of DPA, and a call for developing DPA institutes on account of the complexity of conducting deliberative analysis. Next, the article brings the conceptual framework of TT2.0 and its two models: an external model describing the relations among TT2.0 and other policy actors and an internal model structuring the roles within a TT2.0 and their division of labor. Finally, the article discusses some varieties of TT2.0 in operation and suggests several strategies for devising and operating TT2.0.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abelson, D. E. (2009). Do think tanks matter? Assessing the impact of public policy institutes (2nd ed.). Kingston and Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, C. J. (2002). Humble analysis: The practice of joint fact-finding. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auer, M. R. (2011). The policy sciences of social media. Policy Studies Journal, 39(4), 709–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blomkamp, E. (2014). Uses of evidence in local cultural policy: Performance, legitimation, problem representation, and learning in two Australian municipalities. Evidence & Policy, 10(2), 223–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryson, J. M., Quick, K. S., Slotterback, C. S., & Crosby, B. C. (2013). Designing public participation processes. Public Administration Review, 73(1), 23–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, S., & Kennedy, W. J. D. (1988). Managing public disputes: A practical guide to handling conflict and reaching agreement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, S. (2012). The internet as a space for public deliberation. In F. Fischer & H. Gottweis (Eds.), The argumentative turn revisited: Public policy as communicative practice (pp. 149–179). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • deLeon, P. (1992). The democratization of the policy sciences. Public Administration Review, 52(2), 125–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • deLeon, P. (1997). Democracy and the policy sciences. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • deLeon, P. (1998a). The evidentiary base for policy analysis: Empiricist versus postpositivist positions. Policy Studies Journal, 26(1), 109–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • deLeon, P. (1998b). Models of policy discourse: Insights versus prediction. Policy Studies Journal, 26(1), 147–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J. S. (2005). Deliberative democracy in different places. Journal of Zhejiang University, 35(3), 32–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J. S., & Hendriks, C. M. (2012). Fostering deliberation in the forum. In F. Fischer & H. Gottweis (Eds.), The argumentative turn revisited: Public policy as communicative practice (pp. 31–57). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Durning, D. (1993). Participatory policy analysis in a social service agency: A case study. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 12(2), 297–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durning, D. (1999). The transition from traditional to postpositivist policy analysis: A role for Q-methodology. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18(3), 389–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, D., Farina, C., & Heidt, J. (2014). The value of words: Narrative as evidence in policy making. Evidence & Policy, 10(2), 243–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F. (1998). Beyond empiricism: Policy inquiry in postpositivist perspective. Policy Studies Journal, 26(1), 129–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F. (2004). Citizens and experts in risk assessment: Technical knowledge in practical deliberation. Technology Assessment: Theory and Practice, 13(1), 90–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F. (2006). Deliberative policy analysis as practical reason: Integrating empirical and normative arguments. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, methods, and politics (pp. 223–236). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F. (2009). Democracy and expertise: Reorienting policy inquiry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Fischer, F., & Forester, J. (1987). Confronting values in policy analysis. Newberry Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F., & Forester, J. (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F., & Gottweis, H. (2012). The Argumentative turn revisited: Public policy as communicative practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Flower, L. (2003). Intercultural knowledge building: The literate action of a community think tank. In C. Bazerman & D. R. Russell (Eds.), Writing selves, writing societies: Research from activity perspectives (pp. 239–279). Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forester, J. (2006). Making participation work when interests conflict. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(4), 447–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frederickson, H. G. (1991). Toward a theory of the public for public administration. Administration & Society, 22(4), 395–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fung, A. (2005). Mapping public deliberation. Report for the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.

  • Gastil, J., & Keith, W. M. (2005). A nation that (sometimes) likes to talk: A brief history of public deliberation in the United States. In J. Gastil & P. Levine (Eds.), The deliberative democracy handbook: Strategies for effective civic engagement in the twenty-first century (pp. 3–19). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gastil, J., & Levine, P. (2005). The deliberative democracy handbook: Strategies for effective civic engagement in the twenty-first century. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gøtze, J., & Pedersen, C. B. (2009). State of the eUnion: Government 2.0 and onwards. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse.

  • Gudowsky, N., & Bechtold, U. (2013). The role of information in public participation. Journal of Public Deliberation, 9(1), Article 3.

  • Hajer, M. A. (2003). Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void. Policy Sciences, 36(2), 175–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hajer, M. A. (2005). Rebuilding Ground Zero: The politics of performance. Planning Theory & Practice, 6(4), 445–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hajer, M. A. (2006). Doing discourse analysis: Coalitions, practices, meaning. In M. van den Brink & T. Metze (Eds.), Words matter in policy and planning: Discourse theory and method in the social sciences (pp. 65–74). Utrecht: Netherlands Graduate School of Urban and Regional Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajer, M. A., & Wagenaar, H. (2003). Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hampton, G. (2004). Enhancing public participation through narrative analysis. Policy Sciences, 37, 261–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hampton, G. (2009). Narrative policy analysis and the integration of public involvement in decision making. Policy Sciences, 42, 227–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkesworth, M. E. (1988). Theoretical issues in policy analysis. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Head, B. (2009). Evidence-based policy: Principles and requirements. In Australian. Government. Productivity. Commission (Ed.), Strengthening evidence based policy in the Australian Federation, volume 1 proceedings (Vol. 1, pp. 13–26). Canberra: Roundtable Proceedings, Productivity Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healey, P. (2003). Collaborative planning in perspective. Planning Theory, 2(2), 101–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedeen, T. (2004). The evolution and evaluation of community mediation: Limited research suggests unlimited progress. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 22(1–2), 101–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heineman, R. A., Bluhm, W. T., Peterson, S. A., & Kearny, E. N. (2002). The world of the policy analyst: rationality, values, and politics (3rd ed.). New York: Chatham House Publisher.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendriks, C. M. (2006). Integrated deliberation: Reconciling civil society’s dual role in deliberative democracy. Political Studies, 54(3), 486–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendriks, C. M., & Carson, L. (2008). Can the market help the forum? Negotiating the commercialization of deliberative democracy. Policy Sciences, 41, 293–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holzer, M., Melitski, J., Rho, S., & Schwester, R. (2004). Restoring trust in government: The potential of digital citizen participation. IBM Center for the Business of Government.

  • Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2010). Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karl, H. A., Susskind, L. E., & Wallace, K. H. (2007). A dialogue, not a diatribe: Effective integration of science and policy through joint fact finding. Environment, 49(1), 20–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell, H. D. (1951). The policy orientation. In D. Lerner & H. D. Lasswell (Eds.), The policy sciences: Recent developments in scope and method (pp. 3–16). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y. (2010). Experimental policy research methodology: Exploring China’s policy issues adversarially in laboratory. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 27(2), 224–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y. (2011). Experimental policy research methodology for interest analysis: Theory and application. Beijing: Peking University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, A. C. (1998). Bridging positivist and interpretivist: Approaches to qualitative methods. Policy Studies Journal, 26(1), 162–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lukensmeyer, C. J., & Torres, L. H. (2006). Public deliberation: A manager’s guide to citizen engagement. IBM Center for the Business of Government.

  • MacDonald, C. (2003). The value of discourse analysis as a methodological tool for understanding a land reform program. Policy Sciences, 36, 151–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, argument, and persuasion in the policy process. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, I. (1997). Debating technologies: A methodological contribution to the design and evaluation of participatory policy analysis. Tilburg, Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCreary, S. T., Gamman, J. K., & Brooks, B. (2001). Refining and testing joint fact-finding for environmental dispute resolution: Ten years of success. Mediation Quarterly, 18(4), 329–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGann, J. G. (2012). Global go to think tanks report and policy advice. Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program: University of Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNutt, K., & Marchildon, G. (2009). Think tanks and the web: Measuring visibility and influence. Canadian Public Policy, 35(2), 219–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mergel, I. (2012). Social media in the public sector: Participation, collaboration, and transparency in a networked world. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nabatchi, T. (2010). The (re)discovery of the public in public administration. Public Administration Review, 70(suppl 1), s309–s311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nabatchi, T. (2012). A manager’s guide to evaluating citizen participation. IBM Center for the Business of Government.

  • O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. O’Reilly Media. http://oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html?page=1. Accessed 7 November 2013.

  • Patton, C. V., & Sawicki, D. S. (1993). Basic methods of policy analysis and planning (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O., Webler, T., Rakel, H., Dienel, P., & Johnson, B. (1993). Public participation in decision making: A three-step procedure. Policy Sciences, 26(3), 189–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rich, A. (2004). Think tanks, public policy, and the politics of expertise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, N. (1997). Public deliberation: An alternative approach to crafting policy and setting direction. Public Administration Review, 57(2), 124–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, N. (2004). Public deliberation in an age of direct citizen participation. American Review of Public Administration, 34, 315–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roe, E. (1994). Narrative policy analysis: Theory and practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rutherford, M. B., Gibeau, M. L., Clark, S. G., & Chamberlain, E. C. (2009). Interdisciplinary problem solving workshops for grizzly bear conservation in Banff National Park, Canada. Policy Sciences, 42, 163–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steelman, T. A., & Maguire, L. A. (1999). Understanding participant perspectives: Q-methodology in national forest management. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18(3), 361–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, D. (2006). Think tanks and policy analysis. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, methods, and politics (pp. 149–157). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, D., & Denham, A. (2004). Think tank traditions: Policy research and the politics of ideas. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, D., & Garnett, M. (1998). Think tanks, policy advice and governance. In D. Stone, A. Denham, & M. Garnett (Eds.), Think tanks across nations: A comparative approach (pp. 1–20). Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straus, R. M. (2011). Citizens’ use of policy symbols and frames. Policy Sciences, 44, 13–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Susskind, L. E., & Cruikshank, J. (2006). Breaking Robert’s Rules: The new way to run your meeting, build consensus, and get results. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susskind, L. E., & Hulet, C. (2007). The practice of public dispute resolution: Measuring the dollar value of the field. Negotiation Journal, 23(3), 355–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Susskind, L. E., McKearnan, S., & Thomas-Larmer, J. (1999). The consensus building handbook: A comprehensive guide to reaching agreement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, J. C. (1995). Public participation in public decisions: New skills and strategies for public managers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, J., Newman, M., & Oliver, S. (2013). Rapid evidence assessments of research to inform social policy: Taking stock and moving forward. Evidence & Policy, 9(1), 5–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Throgmorton, J. A. (1991). The rhetorics of policy analysis. Policy Sciences, 24(2), 153–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wagenaar, H. (2006). Interpretation and intention in policy analysis. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, methods, and politics (pp. 429–441). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wagle, U. (2000). The policy science of democracy: The issues of methodology and citizen participation. Policy Sciences, 33(2), 207–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walters, L. C., Aydelotte, J., & Miller, J. (2000). Putting more public in policy analysis. Public Administration Review, 60(4), 349–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, X. (2001). Assessing public participation in U.S. cities. Public Performance & Management Review, 24(4), 322–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, R. K. (1989). The changing world of think tanks. Political Science and Politics, 22(3), 563–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, R. K., & McGann, J. G. (2000). Think tanks and civil societies in a time of change. In J. G. McGann & R. K. Weaver (Eds.), Think tanks and civil societies: Catalysts for ideas and action (pp. 1–35). New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weimer, D. L. (1998). Policy analysis and evidence: A craft perspective. Policy Studies Journal, 26(1), 114–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yanow, D. (1995). Practices of policy interpretation. Policy Sciences, 28(2), 111–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yanow, D. (2007). Interpretation in policy analysis: On methods and practice. Critical Policy Analysis, 1(1), 110–122.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research is funded by the Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 71473016). The author would like to thank Maarten A. Hajer and Lawrence E. Susskind for their insightful comments on this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, 100081, People’s Republic of China

    Ya Li

Authors
  1. Ya Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ya Li.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, Y. Think tank 2.0 for deliberative policy analysis. Policy Sci 48, 25–50 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-014-9207-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-014-9207-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation