Systematic Thinking on Logical System of Think Tank Research

PAN Jiaofeng1 LU Xiao1

(1.Institutes of Science and Development, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China 100190)

【Abstract】As an important part of the national decision-making consulting system, theoretical and methodological think-tank research could contribute to improving the level of think tank research, expand the scope of the questions concerned, and effectively exert its role and functions. This paper views think tank research as the object of investigation, and reflects theoretically on the more general role and characteristics, the principles and logical system, the process and methods, and the evaluation criteria of think tank products, which helps form systematic thinking on the logical system of think tank research.

【Keywords】 think tank; theoretical research; logical system of think tank research; evaluation criteria;


【Funds】 Emergency Program of National Natural Science Foundation of China (71741032) Youth Program of National Natural Science Foundation of China (71603249)

Download this article


    [1]. ① With achieving modernization as the goal of development, China has proposed the “four modernizations” and continuously adjusted their meanings with the economic and social progress. It has undergone the modernization of “industry, agriculture, transport, and national defense” proposed by the First National People’s Congress in 1954, the modernization of “agriculture, industry, national defense, science and technology” proposed by the Third National People’s Congress in 1964, and “new type of industrialization, informatization, urbanization, and modernization of agriculture” proposed by the Eighteenth National Congress of the CPC in 2012. [^Back]

    [2]. ② “Fourteen Opinions of Science,” i.e., “Fourteen Opinions on the Current Work of Natural Science Research Institutions by the Party Group of the State Scientific and Technological Commission and the Party Group of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Draft)” was issued by the CPC Central Committee on July 19, 1961. It was the first national-level comprehensive and systematic regulation on science and technology policy since the founding of the People’s Republic of China, which had an important status and research value in the history of contemporary S&T policy in China. The Chinese Academy of Sciences played an important role in the formulation of the “Fourteen Opinions of Science.” [^Back]

    [3]. ③ In 1956, the CPC Central Committee held a conference on intellectuals and issued a great call for a “march on science.” The CPC Central Committee formulated the first medium- and long-term plan for the development of science and technology in China, namely “The Twelve-Year National Long-term Outline for S&T Development (1956–1967).” Thus,the science and technology in China began to develop under the guidance of the state following the principle of combining prospect programming with short-term plans. [^Back]


    [1] Lv Q. 从智库研究理论到科技智库建设——专访中国科学院科技战略咨询研究院潘教峰院长. Think Tank: Theory & Practice. 2016, 1 (6): 2–5 (in Chinese).

    [2] McGann J. The Global ‘Go-to’ Think Tanks: The Leading Public Policy Research Organizations in the World. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2010.

    [3] Madoka N. Introduction//The World Directory of Think-tanks (fourth edition). Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002.

    [4] Braun M, Chudnovsky M, Di Nucci C, et al. A Comparative Study of Think Tanks in Latin America, Asia and Africa. Buenos Aires: CIPPEC, 2004.

    [5] Goodwin C, Nacht M. Beyond Government: Extending the Public Policy Debate in Emerging Democracies. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1995.

    [6] Hashimoto T, Hell S, Nam S W. Public Policy Research and Training in Vietnam. Tokyo: Asian Development Bank Institute, 2006.

    [7] Abelson D. Do Think-Tanks Matter? Assessing the Impact of Public Policy Institutes. Montreal, QC: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2009.

    [8] Ahmad M. US think tanks and the politics of expertise: role, value and impact. Political Quarterly, 2008, 79 (4): 529–555.

    [9] Hart P, Vromen A. A new era for think tanks in public policy? International trends, australian realities. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 2008, 67 (2): 135–148.

    [10] Katwala S. Bringing equality back in: the role of a think-tank. Benefits, 2009, 17 (1): 57–63.

    [11] McGann J. Think Tanks and Policy Advice in the US: Academics, Advisors and Advocates. New York: Routledge, 2007.

    [12] Weaver K R. The changing world of think-tanks. Political Science and Politics, 1989, 22 (3): 563–578.

    [13] Campbell J, Pedersen O. Knowledge Regimes and Comparative Political Economy. American Sociological Association Annual Meeting: Boston MA, 2008.

    [14] Plehwe D, Walpen B, Neunhoffer G. Reconsidering Neoliberal Hegemony//Neoliberal Hegemony: A Global Critique. London: Routledge, 2006: 1–24.

    [15] Desai R. Neoliberalism and Cultural Nationalism//Neoliberal Hegemony: A Global Critique. London: Routledge, 2006: 222–235.

    [16] Stone D. Capturing the Political Imagination: Think Tanks and the Policy Process. London: Frank Cass, 1996.

    [17] Zhu XF. “思想库”研究:西方研究综述. Social Sciences Abroad. 2007, (1): 60–69 (in Chinese).

    [18] Pan JF, Yang GL, Liu HH. DIIS Theory and Methodology in Think Tanks. Chinese Journal of Management Science. 2017, 25 (S): 1–14 (in Chinese).

    [19] Pan JF. 科技智库研究的DIIS理论方法. China Science Daily. 2017-01-09 (1) (in Chinese).

    [20] Pan JF. Initial people-oriented intention should not be forgotten in S&T development—Interview with Pan Jiaofeng. Bulletin of Chinese Academy Sciences. 2017, 32 (6): 637–640 (in Chinese).

    [21] Pan JF. 加强智库建设,推进国家治理体系和治理能力现代化--潘教峰研究员访谈. Bulletin of Chinese Academy Sciences. 2017, 32 (3): 297–302 (in Chinese).

    [22] Pan JF, Yang GL, Liu HH. DIIS methodology of science and technology assessment. Bulletin of Chinese Academy Sciences. 2018, 33 (1): 68–75 (in Chinese).

This Article


CN: 11-1806/N

Vol 33, No. 10, Pages 1093-1103

October 2018


Article Outline


  • 1 Problem and theoretical review
  • 2 Understanding of basic logical system in the theory of think tank research
  • 3 Conclusions and discussion
  • Footnote