IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/polsoc/v42y2023i3p359-377..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Spreading expertise: think tanks as digital advocators in the social media era

Author

Listed:
  • Jing Zhao
  • Xufeng Zhu

Abstract

Think tanks and their roles in rendering expertise in policy advice have been the subject of historical and ongoing research in policy sciences. However, the widening trend of digital behaviors of think tanks in the social media era is yet to be investigated. While social media is reshaping the political ecology and challenging conventional sources of knowledge, it also serves as a potential channel for think tanks to publicly share their expertise and policy advice with the public and decision-makers, thus evolving into “digital advocators.” Based on social media big data methods, this paper has constructed two sets of new think tank indicators with “network centrality” of social media accounts and “ripple effect” of social media citations from Facebook and Twitter to capture and observe the digital activities of 207 prominent think tanks in 62 countries or regions. We have concluded that think tanks have displayed their opinion and values and increased visibility as digital advocators by spreading expertise on social media platforms with online marketing skills. With various values and ideas, social media not only is hosting massive policy advocacy activities and being an expertise spreading arena for think tanks but has also been changing the ecology of the think tank industry and expertise markets.

Suggested Citation

  • Jing Zhao & Xufeng Zhu, 2023. "Spreading expertise: think tanks as digital advocators in the social media era," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 42(3), pages 359-377.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:polsoc:v:42:y:2023:i:3:p:359-377.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/polsoc/puad025
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Craft, Jonathan & Howlett, Michael, 2012. "Policy formulation, governance shifts and policy influence: location and content in policy advisory systems," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 79-98, August.
    2. François Facchini & Mickael Melki, 2019. "The Democratic Crisis and the Knowledge Problem," Post-Print hal-02325806, HAL.
    3. Clarke, Killian & Kocak, Korhan, 2020. "Launching Revolution: Social Media and the Egyptian Uprising’s First Movers," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(3), pages 1025-1045, July.
    4. Ro'ee Levy, 2021. "Social Media, News Consumption, and Polarization: Evidence from a Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(3), pages 831-870, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Giliberto Capano & Michael Howlett & Leslie A Pal & M Ramesh, 2023. "Dealing with the challenges of legitimacy, values, and politics in policy advice," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 42(3), pages 275-287.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Felix Chopras & Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth, 2024. "The Demand for News: Accuracy Concerns Versus Belief Confirmation Motives," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 134(661), pages 1806-1834.
    2. Francesco Capozza & Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2021. "Studying Information Acquisition in the Field: A Practical Guide and Review," CEBI working paper series 21-15, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. The Center for Economic Behavior and Inequality (CEBI).
    3. Carattini, Stefano & Gillingham, Kenneth & Meng, Xiangyu & Yoeli, Erez, 2024. "Peer-to-peer solar and social rewards: Evidence from a field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 340-370.
    4. Nicolás Ajzenman & Bruno Ferman & Sant’Anna Pedro C., 2023. "Discrimination in the Formation of Academic Networks: A Field Experiment on #EconTwitter," Working Papers 235, Red Nacional de Investigadores en Economía (RedNIE).
    5. Nicolás Ajzenman & Bruno Ferman & Pedro C. Sant’Anna, 2023. "Rooting for the Same Team: On the Interplay between Political and Social Identities in the Formation of Social Ties," Working Papers 231, Red Nacional de Investigadores en Economía (RedNIE).
    6. Bharati, Tushar & Jetter, Michael & Malik, Muhammad Nauman, 2024. "Types of communications technology and civil conflict," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    7. Arshed, Norin, 2017. "The origins of policy ideas: The importance of think tanks in the enterprise policy process in the UK," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 74-83.
    8. Columbus, Simon & Feld, Lars P. & Kasper, Matthias & Rablen, Matthew D., 2023. "Behavioural Responses to Unfair Institutions: Experimental Evidence on Rule Compliance, Norm Polarisation, and Trust," IZA Discussion Papers 16346, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. Giuberti Coutinho, Lorena, 2021. "Political polarization and the impact of internet and social media use in Brazil," MERIT Working Papers 2021-032, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    10. Manuela Fritz & Michael Grimm & Ingmar Weber & Elad Yom-Tov & Benedictus Praditya, 2022. "Uncover your risk! Using Facebook to increase personal risk awareness and screening of type 2 diabetes in Indonesia," Working Papers 221, Bavarian Graduate Program in Economics (BGPE).
    11. Nathalie Schiffino & Kristian Krieger, 2019. "Advisory bodies and morality policies: does ethical expertise matter?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(2), pages 191-210, June.
    12. Griffith, David A. & Lee, Hannah S. & Yalcinkaya, Goksel, 2023. "Understanding the relationship between the use of social media and the prevalence of anxiety at the country level: a multi-country examination," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(4).
    13. Andrea Tesei & Filipe Campante & Ruben Durante, 2022. "Media and Social Capital," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 14(1), pages 69-91, August.
    14. Heiler, Phillip, 2024. "Heterogeneous treatment effect bounds under sample selection with an application to the effects of social media on political polarization," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 244(1).
    15. J. Anthony Cookson & Corbin Fox & Javier Gil-Bazo & Juan Imbet & Christoph Schiller, 2024. "Social Media as a Bank Run Catalyst," Working Papers hal-04400382, HAL.
    16. Eugen Dimant, 2020. "Hate Trumps Love: The Impact of Political Polarization on Social Preferences," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 029, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    17. Arnošt Veselý, 2017. "Policy advice as policy work: a conceptual framework for multi-level analysis," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(1), pages 139-154, March.
    18. Caner Bakir, 2023. "The vicious circle of policy advisory systems and knowledge regimes in consolidated authoritarian regimes," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 42(3), pages 419-439.
    19. James N. Druckman & Donald P. Green & Shanto Iyengar, 2023. "Does Affective Polarization Contribute to Democratic Backsliding in America?," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 708(1), pages 137-163, July.
    20. Simon Calmar Andersen & Louise Beuchert & Phillip Heiler & Helena Skyt Nielsen, 2023. "A Guide to Impact Evaluation under Sample Selection and Missing Data: Teacher's Aides and Adolescent Mental Health," Papers 2308.04963, arXiv.org.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:polsoc:v:42:y:2023:i:3:p:359-377.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/policyandsociety .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.