Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T23:52:14.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Appraising the Epistemic Performance of Social Systems: The Case of Think Tank Evaluations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2020

François Claveau Open the ORCID record for François Claveau [Opens in a new window]  and
Andréanne Veillette Open the ORCID record for Andréanne Veillette [Opens in a new window]
François Claveau*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy and Applied Ethics, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
Andréanne Veillette
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy and Applied Ethics, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article elaborates a conceptual framework to systematize the epistemic evaluation of social systems. This framework can be used to structure an evaluation or to characterize and assess existing ones. The article then uses the framework to assess four representative evaluations of think tanks. This meta-evaluation exemplifies how the framework can play its structuring role. It also leads us to general conclusions about the existing evaluations of think tanks. Most importantly, by focusing on the organizational level, existing evaluations miss factors that are situated at the network and ecosystemic levels and that significantly determine how well think tanks serve society in producing and disseminating knowledge relevant to public policy. This conclusion suggests the need for epistemic evaluations of think tank ecosystems.

Keywords

systems-oriented social epistemologythink tanksapplied epistemologyepistemic evaluations
Type
Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , June 2022 , pp. 159 - 177
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abelson, D.E. (2000). ‘Do Think Tanks Matter? Opportunities, Constraints and Incentives for Think Tanks in Canada and the United States.’ Global Society 14(2), 213–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600820050008458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abelson, D.E. (2016). Northern Lights: Exploring Canada's Think Tank Landscape. Montréal: McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
Bishop, M.A. and Trout, J.D. (2005). Epistemology and the Psychology of Human Judgment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, M.A. and Trout, J.D. (2008). ‘Strategic Reliabilism: A Naturalistic Approach to Epistemology.’ Philosophy Compass 3(5), 1049–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, M.A. and Trout, J.D. (2017). ‘Epistemology for (Real) People.’ In Lippert-Rasmussen, K., Brownlee, K. and Coady, D. (eds), A Companion to Applied Philosophy, pp. 103–19. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bluhm, R. and Borgerson, K. (2019). ‘Evidence-Based Medicine.’ In Coady, D. and Chase, J. (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Applied Epistemology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Clark, J. and Roodman, D. (2013). ‘Measuring Think Tank Performance: An Index of Public Profile.’ Washington, DC: Center For Global Development.Google Scholar
Dietsch, P., Claveau, F. and Fontan, C. (2018). Do Central Banks Serve the People? Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Drezner, D. (2017). The Ideas Industry: How Pessimists, Partisans, and Plutocrats are Transforming the Marketplace of Ideas. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fallis, D. (2006). ‘Epistemic Value Theory and Social Epistemology.’ Episteme 2(3), 177–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fallis, D. (2008). ‘Toward an Epistemology of Wikipedia.’ Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59(10), 1662–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraassen, B.C. van. (1980). The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, M. (2014). Joint Commitment: How We Make the Social World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, A.I. (1999). Knowledge in a Social World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, A.I. (2000). ‘Replies to Reviews of Knowledge in a Social World.’ Social Epistemology 14(4), 317–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, A.I. (2002). ‘Reply to Commentators.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 64(1), 215–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, A.I. (2010). ‘Systems-Oriented Social Epistemology.’ In Hawthorne, J. and Gendler, T.S. (eds), Oxford Studies in Epistemology, Vol. 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gutbrod, H. (2017). ‘Think Tank Transparency in Canada: Lagging Behind the US and UK.’ Transparify.Google Scholar
Gutbrod, H. (2018). ‘Transparify 2018 Report.’ Transparify.Google Scholar
Hardwig, J. (1985). ‘Epistemic Dependence.’ Journal of Philosophy 82(7), 335–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, G.M. (2006). ‘What are Institutions?’ Journal of Economic Issues 40(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Intemann, K. (2009). ‘Why Diversity Matters: Understanding and Applying the Diversity Component of the National Science Foundation's Broader Impacts Criterion.’ Social Epistemology 23(3–4), 249–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinzel, K. (2015). ‘Narrative and Evidence. How can Case Studies from the History of Science Support Claims in the Philosophy of Science?’ Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 49, 48–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koellner, P. (2013). Think Tanks: The Quest to Define and to Rank Them. GIGA Focus International Edition No. 10. Hamburg: GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies – Leibniz-Institut für Globale und Regionale Studien.Google Scholar
Kotzee, B. (2013). Education and the Growth of Knowledge: Perspectives from Social and Virtue Epistemology. Chichester: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1971). ‘History of Science and Its Rational Reconstructions.’ In Cohen, R.S. and Buck, R.C. (eds), PSA 1970. In Memory of Rudolf Carnap: Proceedings of the 1970 Biennial Meeting Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 91–136. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-3142-4_7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landry, J. (2018). ‘Les Think Tanks.’ In Claveau, F. and Prud'homme, J. (eds), Experts, Sciences et Sociétés. Montréal: Presses de l'Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (2006). Truth, Error, and Criminal Law: An Essay in Legal Epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, E. (2003). ‘Think Tanks and the Ecology of Public Policy.’ In Banking on Knowledge: The Genesis of the Global Development Network. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Longino, H.E. (1990). Science as Social Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAllister, J.W. (2018). ‘Using History as Evidence in Philosophy of Science: A Methodological Critique.’ Journal of the Philosophy of History 12(2), 239–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGann, J. (2007). Think Tanks and Policy Advice in the US: Academics, Advisors and Advocates. Oxford: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203963203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGann, J. (2017). 2016 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report. Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program (TTCSP), University of Pennsylvania. https://repository.upenn.edu/think_tanks/12/.Google Scholar
Medvetz, T. (2012). Think Tanks in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merton, R.K. (1942). ‘A Note on Science and Democracy.’ Journal of Legal and Political Sociology 1, 115–26.Google Scholar
Miller, B. (2013). ‘When is Consensus Knowledge Based? Distinguishing Shared Knowledge from Mere Agreement.’ Synthese 190(7), 1293–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, S.E. (2007). The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Posen, A.S. (2002). ‘Think Tanks: Who's Hot and Who's Not.’ The International Economy. http://www.international-economy.com/TIE_F02_ThinkTanksPosen.pdf.Google Scholar
Ruble, N.S. (2000). ‘Think Tanks: Who's Hot and Who's Not.’ The International Economy, September/October.Google Scholar
Schickore, J. (2018). ‘Explication Work for Science and Philosophy.’ Journal of the Philosophy of History 12, 191–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scholl, R. and Räz, T. (2016). ‘Towards a Methodology for Integrated History and Philosophy of Science.’ In Sauer, T. and Scholl, R. (eds), The Philosophy of Historical Case Studies, pp. 69–91. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Stone, D. (ed.) (2003). Banking on Knowledge: The Genesis of the Global Development Network. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, D. (2007). ‘Recycling Bins, Garbage Cans or Think Tanks? Three Myths Regarding Policy Analysis Institutes.’ Public Administration 85(2), 259–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trimbath, S. (2005). ‘Think Tanks: Who's Hot and Who's Not.’ The International Economy. http://www.international-economy.com/TIE_Su05_ThinkTanksTrimbath.pdf.Google Scholar
Weaver, R.K. (1989). ‘The Changing World of Think Tanks.’ PS: Political Science & Politics 22(3), 563–78.Google Scholar
Wray, K.B. (2001). ‘Collective Belief and Acceptance.’ Synthese 129(3), 319–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar