Expert involvement has received increasing academic attention, and expert typology, organizational types and knowledge utilization have been well documented and well theorized. However, the literature on expert involvement is remarkably silent on how to understand the internal structure of expert groups and the influence they bring to bear. In this study, we seek to bridge this gap by theorizing and empirically demonstrating the internal discrepancy in expert network. We do so through an in-depth qualitative analysis of data from an empirical study on urban planning decision-making in China. Building on existing literature, participant observation and interview data, the study elaborates an expert network model that analyses how government choices, organizational characteristics, and capital in network resources shape expert influence. The empirical analysis indicates that the role an expert receives in policy making is a consequence of different expert networks. Based on this, we developed the concept of “resources empowerment expert network” to understand the logic of resource flow in network and discuss how this concept can contribute to the broader literature on expert involvement.
AbelsonD. E. (2002). Do think tanks matter: Assessing the impact of public policy institutes. McGill-Queens University Press.
2.
AbelsonD. E. (2018). Do think tanks matter: Assessing the impact of public policy institutes. McGill-Queen's Press-MQUP.
3.
AbelsonD. E.CarberryC. M. (1997). Policy experts in presidential campaigns: A model of think tank recruitment. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 27(4), 679–697.
4.
AhmadM. (2008). US think tanks and the politics of expertise: Role, value and impact. The Political Quarterly, 79(4), 529–555.
5.
AhrneG.BrunssonN. (2011). Organization outside organizations: The significance of partial organization. Organization, 18(1), 83–104.
6.
AkerlofK. L.AllegraA.NelsonS.GonnellaC.WashbourneC.TylerC. (2022). Global perspectives on scientists’ roles in legislative policymaking. Policy Sciences, 55, 351–367.
7.
AnsellC.GashA. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571.
8.
BakirC.AkgunayS.CobanK. (2021). Why does the combination of policy entrepreneur and institutional entrepreneur roles matter for the institutionalization of policy ideas?Policy Sciences, 54(2), 397–422.
9.
BauerM. W.JensenP. (2011). The mobilization of scientists for public engagement. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 3–11.
10.
BoswellC. (2008). The political functions of expert knowledge: Knowledge and legitimation in European Union immigration policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(4), 471–488.
11.
BoswellJ. (2018). What makes evidence-based policy making such a useful myth?The case of NICE guidance on bariatric surgery in the United Kingdom. Governance, 31, 199–214.
12.
BourdieuP. (1986). The forms of capital. In SzemanI.KaposyT. (Eds) Cultural theory: An anthology(pp. 81–93). John Wiley & Sons
13.
BrennanN.ConnellB. (2000). Intellectual capital: current issues and policy implications. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1, 206–240.
14.
BuschA. (2009). Politikwissenschaft und Politikberatung: Reflektionen Anlässlich der Aktuellen Krise. Zeitschrift für Politikberatung, 2(3), 467–484.
15.
CaplanN. (1979). The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization. The American Behavioral Scientist, 22(3), 459–470.
16.
ChristensenJ. (2021). Expert knowledge and policymaking: A multi-disciplinary research agenda. Policy and Politics, 49(3), 455–471.
17.
ChristensenJ. (2023). Studying expert influence: A methodological agenda. West European Politics, 46(3), 600–613.
18.
CookT. E. (1998). Governing with the news: The news media as a political institution. University of Chicago Press.
19.
DuinaF. (2022). Is academic research useful to EU officials? The logic of institutional openness in the Commission. Journal of European Public Policy, 29, 1493–1511.
20.
DumayJ. C. (2009). Intellectual capital measurement: A critical approach. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 10, 190–210.
EyalG. (2013). For a sociology of expertise: The social origins of the autism epidemic. The American Journal of Sociology, 118(4), 863–907.
23.
FischerM.LeifeldP. (2015). Policy forums: Why do they exist and what are they used for?Policy Sciences, 48(3), 363–382.
24.
FlemingJ.RhodesR. (2018). Can experience be evidence? Craft knowledge and evidence-based policing. Policy and Politics, 46(1), 3–26.
25.
FreemanL. C. (1978). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215–239.
26.
FunkeN.HuitemaD.PetersenA.NienaberS. (2021). The roles of experts and expert-based information in the advocacy coalition framework: Conceptual and empirical considerations based on the acid mine drainage case study in Gauteng, South Africa. Policy Studies Journal, 49(3), 785–810.
27.
GalushkoV.DjordjevicM. (2018). Think tanks and ‘policy hybrids’ in the Western Balkans and post-soviet space. Policy and Society, 37(2), 206–221.
28.
GrossmannM. (2013). The variable politics of the policy process: Issue-area differences and comparative networks. The Journal of Politics, 75(1), 65–79.
29.
HaasP. (2004). When does power listen to truth? A constructivist approach to the policy process. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(4), 569–592.
30.
HaasP. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35.
31.
HesstvedtS.ChristensenJ. (2021). Political and administrative control of expert groups—A mixed-methods study. Governance, 36(2), 337–357.
32.
HirschmanD.BermanE. P. (2014). Do economists make policies? On the political effects of economics. Socio-Economic Review, 12(4), 779–811.
33.
JasanoffS. (1990). The fifth branch. Science advisers as policymakers. Harvard University Press.
34.
Jennings JrE. T.HallJ. L. (2012). Evidence-based practice and the use of information in state agency decision making. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(2), 245–266.
35.
KrizsánA.ZentaiV. (2005). From civil society to policy research: The case of the Soros Network and its Roma policies. In StoneD.MaxwellS. (Eds.), Global knowledge networks and international development: Bridges across boundaries (pp. 168–184). Routledge.
36.
Laage-ThomsenJ. (2022). Professional expertise in policy advisory systems: How administrators and consultants built behavioral insights in Danish public agencies. Public Administration, 100(3), 472–487.
37.
LeachW. D. (2006). Collaborative public management and democracy: Evidence from Western Watershed Partnerships. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 100–110.
38.
LundinM.ÖbergP. (2014). Expert knowledge use and deliberation in local policy making. Policy Sciences, 47(1), 25–49.
39.
MaasenS.WeingartP. (Eds.). (2005). Democratization of expertise? Exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision-making. Springer.
40.
MarshD. (Ed.). (1998). Comparing policy networks. Open University Press.
41.
McGannJ. G.SabatiniR. (2011). Global think tanks: Policy networks and governance. Routledge.
42.
McGannJ. G.WeaverR. K. (2000). Think tanks and civil society. Catalysts for ideas and action. Transaction.
43.
MedvetzT. (2006). Hybrid intellectuals: Toward a social praxeology of US think tank experts. Sociology.
44.
MedvetzT. (2010). “Public policy is like having a vaudeville act”: Languages of duty and difference among think tank-affiliated policy experts. Qualitative Sociology, 33, 549–562.
45.
MedvetzT. (2012). Murky power:“Think tanks” as boundary organizations. In CourpassonD.GolsorkhiD.SallazJ. J. (Eds.), Rethinking power in organizations, institutions, and markets (Vol. 34, pp. 113–133). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
46.
MeijerA.BoonW.MoorsE. (2013). Stakeholder engagement in pharmaceutical regulation: Connecting technical expertise and lay knowledge in risk monitoring. Public Administration, 91(3), 696–711.
47.
MetzJ. (2013). Expert groups in the European Union: A sui generis phenomenon?Policy and Society, 32(3), 267–278.
48.
MisztalB. A. (2012). Public intellectuals and think tanks: A free market in ideas?International Journal of Politics Culture and Society, 25(4), 127–141.
49.
MontpetitELachapelleE. (2016). Information, values and expert decision-making: The case of soil decontamination. Policy Sciences, 49(2), 155–171.
50.
MontpetitE. (2008). Policy design for legitimacy: Expert knowledge, citizens, time and inclusion in the United Kingdom’s biotechnology sector. Public Administration, 86(1), 259–277.
51.
NewmanJ.CherneyA.HeadB. W. (2016). Do policy makers use academic research? Reexamining the “two communities” theory of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 24–32.
52.
NewmanJ.HeadB. (2015). Beyond the two communities: A reply to Mead’s “why government often ignores research. Policy Sciences, 48(3), 383–393.
53.
NicholsT. (2017). The death of expertise: The campaign against established knowledge and why it matters. Oxford University Press.
54.
NutleyS. M.WalterI.DaviesH. T. O. (2007). Using evidence: How research can inform public services. Policy Press.
55.
PapadopoulosY. (2018). How does knowledge circulate in a regulatory network? Observing a European platform of regulatory authorities meeting. Regulation & Governance, 12(4), 431–450.
56.
PielkeR. A.Jr. (2007). The honest broker: making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge University Press.
57.
PigginJ.HartL. (2017). Physical activity advocacy in the UK: A multiple streams analysis of a hybrid policy issue. Leisure Studies, 36(5), 708–720.
58.
PlehweD.NeujeffskiM.KrämerW. (2018). Saving the dangerous idea: Austerity think tank networks in the European Union. Policy and Society, 37(2), 188–205.
59.
ReagansR.ZuckermanE. W. (2001). Networks, diversity, and productivity: The social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organization Science, 12(4), 502–517.
60.
ReedM. I. (1996). Expert power and control in late modernity: An empirical review and theoretical synthesis. Organization Studies, 17(4), 573–597.
61.
RethemeyerR. K.HatmakerD. M. (2007). Network management reconsidered: An inquiry into management of network structures in public sector service provision. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 617–646.
62.
RichardsG. W. (2019). The Science–policy Relationship Hierarchy (SPRHi) model of Co-production: How Climate Science organizations have influenced the policy process in Canadian case studies. Policy Sciences, 52(1), 67–95.
63.
RobertsJ. J.LightbodyR.LowR.ElstubS. (2020). Experts and evidence in deliberation: Scrutinising the role of witnesses and evidence in mini-publics, a case study. Policy Sciences, 53(1), 3–32.
64.
RockP. (Ed.). (1979). Participant observation. In The making of symbolic interactionism (pp. 178–216). Palgrave Macmillan.
65.
SandströmA.CarlssonL. (2008). The performance of policy networks: The relation between network structure and network performance. Policy Studies Journal, 36(4), 497–524.
66.
SchlesingerP. (2009). Creativity and the experts: New labour, think tanks, and the policy process. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 14(1), 3–20.
67.
SchreflerL. (2010). The usage of scientific knowledge by independent regulatory agencies. Governance, 23(2), 309–330.
68.
SendingO. J.NeumannI. B. (2006). Governance to governmentality: Analyzing NGOs, states, and power. International Studies Quarterly, 50(3), 651–672.
69.
SeoB. K. (2022). Co-creation of knowledge in the urban planning context: The case of participatory planning for transitional social housing in Hong Kong. Cities, 122, 103518.
70.
ShenY.IeongM. U.ZhuZ. (2021). The function of expert involvement in China's local policy making. Politics and Policy.
71.
StephensN.StephensP. (2021). Interdisciplinary projects as an expert-network: Analysing team work across biological and physical sciences. Science and Technology Studies.
72.
StoneD. (2007). Recycling bins, garbage cans or think tanks? Three myths regarding policy analysis institutes. Public Administration, 85(2), 259–278.
73.
TchilingirianJ. S. (2018). Producing knowledge, producing credibility: British think-tank researchers and the construction of policy reports. International Journal of Politics Culture and Society, 31(2), 161–178.
74.
TeetsJ. (2018). The power of policy networks in authoritarian regimes: Changing environmental policy in China. Governance, 31(1), 125–141.
75.
TurnerK.AlabiO.RaceJ. (2020). Nudging policymakers: A case study of the role and influence of academic policy analysis. Journal of European Public Policy, 27(8), 1270–1286.
76.
WeibleC. M.SabatierP. A.McQueenK. (2009). Themes and variations: Taking stock of the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 121–140.
77.
WestermeierC. (2018). The Bank of International Settlements as a think tank for financial policy-making. Policy and Society, 37(2), 170–187.
78.
WilliamsK. (2021). Credibility in policy expertise: The function of boundaries between research and policy. Policy Studies Journal, 49(1), 37–66.
79.
XueL.ZhuX.HanW. (2018). Embracing scientific decision making: The rise of think-tank policies in China. Pacific Affairs, 91(1), 49–71.
80.
XufengZ. (2009). The influence of think tanks in the Chinese policy process: Different ways and mechanisms. Asian Survey, 49(2), 333–357.
81.
YangL. (2019). Knowledge-driven governance: The role of experts and scholars in combating desertification and other dilemmas of collective action. Springer.
82.
YinR. K. (2018). Case study research: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage.
83.
ZhuX.ZhangP. (2016). Intrinsic motivation and expert behavior: Roles of individual experts in Wenling participatory budgeting reform in China. Administration & Society, 48(7), 851–882.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
