Thinking About Think Tanks: Politics by Techno-Scientific Means

  • Stephen P. Turner
Chapter
Part of the St Antony's Series book series (STANTS)

Abstract

The creation of think tanks has in part been motivated by the desire for an apolitical politics, a politics of facts and standards rather than a politics of interests and public ignorance, and opposed to political machines. This chapter brings out some of the features of this kind of politics in the USA through the historical example of the Massachusetts Bureau of Labor Statistics, which illustrates the place of the construction of a factual world by think tanks as part of policy processes. The history of this bureau also shows how think tanks become surrogates for party intellectuals—a non-category in the USA. Think tanks then proliferated elsewhere as surrogates for politics by normal means.

References

  1. Martins, H.G. 1998. Technology, Modernity, Politics. In The Politics of Postmodernity, ed. J. Good and I. Velody, 150–181. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Massachusetts Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1870. Report of the Bureau of Statistics of Labor I. Boston: Wright & Potter, State Printers. http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/ww/mbsl.html.Google Scholar
  3. ———. 1871. Report of the Bureau of Statistics of Labor II. Boston: Wright & Potter, State Printers. http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/ww/MBSL_AnnualReports_Index.pdf.Google Scholar
  4. ———. 1872. Report of the Bureau of Statistics of Labor. Boston: Wright & Potter, State Printers.Google Scholar
  5. ———. 1874. Report of the Bureau of Statistics of Labor. Boston: Wright & Potter, State Printers. http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/ww/MBSL_AnnualReports_Index.pdf.Google Scholar
  6. Pidgin, C.F. 1876. History of the Bureau of Statistics of Labor of Massachusetts and of Labor Legislation in that State from 1833 to 1876. Boston: Wright and Potter, State Printers.Google Scholar
  7. Rudner, R. 1953. The Scientist Qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments. Philosophy of Science 20 (1): 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Star, S.L., and J.R. Griesemer. 1989. Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science 19 (3): 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Turner, S. 2014a. Expertise and Political Responsibility: The Columbia Shuttle Catastrophe. In The Politics of Expertise, 71–92. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. ———. 2014b. The Pittsburgh Survey and the Survey Movement: An Episode in the History of Expertise. In The Politics of Expertise, 138–151. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. ———. 2017. Knowledge Formations: An Analytic Framework. In The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, ed. R. Frodeman, J. Thompson Klein, and R.C.S. Pacheco, 2nd ed., 9–20. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Watson, W. 2002. The Facts Which Go to Form This Fiction: Elizabeth Stuart Phelps’s ‘The Silent Partner’ and ‘The Massachusetts Bureau of Labor Statistics Reports. College Literature 29 (4): 6–25.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen P. Turner
    • 1
  1. 1.University of South FloridaTampaUSA

Personalised recommendations