Peabody Journal of Education

ISSN: 0161-956X (Print) 1532-7930 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hpje20

New Governance and New Knowledge Brokers:

Think Tanks and Universities as Boundary
Organizations

Gary Anderson, Pedro De La Cruz & Andrea López

To cite this article: Gary Anderson, Pedro De La Cruz & Andrea López (2017) New Governance
and New Knowledge Brokers: Think Tanks and Universities as Boundary Organizations, Peabody
Journal of Education, 92:1, 4-15, DOI: 10.1080/0161956X.2016.1264793

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2016.1264793

Accepted author version posted online: 06

Jan 2017.
Published online: 06 Jan 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 46

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hpje20

Download by: [University of Newcastle, Australia] Date: 26 February 2017, At: 15:39
PEABODY JOURNAL OF EDUCATION, 92:4–15, 2017
Copyright 
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0161-956X print / 1532-7930 online
DOI: 10.1080/0161956X.2016.1264793

SECTION I: NETWORKS AT WORK—SHIFTING

POLICY TOWARD MARKET-BASED PHILOSOPHIES

New Governance and New Knowledge Brokers: Think

Tanks and Universities as Boundary Organizations

Gary Anderson, Pedro De La Cruz, and Andrea López

New York University

It is 8:15 a.m. on Friday, February 13, 2015, and the line at the gourmet coffee place assures a
minimum 15-minute wait. John takes advantage of the free Wi-Fi to read the morning news on his
tablet. After browsing the first couple of pages he reads the headline, “It’s a lesson in pocketing
big pensions” on page 8 of the Daily News in Albany, New York (Blain, 2015). The headline
attracts his attention because he has recently started thinking about his retirement, and the fact
that he has no pension worries him. He is shocked and saddened by the facts that are presented
in the article.
Apparently, according to a report from the Empire Center for Public Policy, there are almost
4,500 individuals retired from the New York City Teacher’s Retirement System who make over
$100,000 per year! Furthermore, according to the same report, this number has increased dramat-
ically in the past six years. John closes his tablet to order his coffee and smiles when he notices
that the person ahead of him on the line was reading a similar report on page two of the paper
version of The New York Post. Both papers took their data from a report published the day before
by the Empire Center for New York State Policy.
Meanwhile, at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association
(AERA), a tenured university professor with over 20 years of research experience presents the
findings of her latest research to eight colleagues and seven graduate students. Her research sug-
gests that more top university graduates are choosing to spend some time teaching after college
and earning a graduate degree in education, but that nearly all of them leave the teaching profes-
sion within two years. The participants in her research cited salaries and working conditions as
their top reasons for leaving the profession. The professor has submitted her research for publi-
cation in an AERA academic journal.

Correspondence should be sent to Gary Anderson, NYU Steinhardt, Administration, Leadership, and Technology, 82
Washington Square East, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10003. E-mail: ga34@nuy.edu
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/hpje.
 NEW GOVERNANCE AND NEW KNOWLEDGE BROKERS 5

These two vignettes illustrate two different approaches to mobilizing knowledge. One is dis-
seminating knowledge to the audience of the New York Post with a readership of over 3 million
a week, and the other, to the audience of an AERA journal with a readership of a few thousand,
but that, in reality, likely accrues maybe 200 downloads. The Empire Center for Public Policy
is a member of the State Policy Network, a right-wing network of think tanks1 , although neither
newspaper identified it ideologically.
These articles in several New York newspapers appeared a mere two days after the Empire
Center for Public Policy released its report. No other research was cited by the journalist who
prepared the report. Although this could be attributed to shortcomings of the journalist or short
deadlines for articles, it is also because think tanks maintain close relations with journalists and
prepare reports that use phraseology and policy-framing that are easily mined for newspaper
articles.
According to Dumas and Anderson (2014), “the political right has been successful in using
think tanks to provide policy knowledge and frame problems in ways that promote their ideo-
logical interests. Educational researchers have a much stronger knowledge base, but have largely
struggled unsuccessfully to enter the policy conversation” (p. 9). In fact, with the emergence of
ideologically based policy networks that often present themselves as neutral, universities are in-
creasingly taking a back seat when it comes to influencing social policy.
One element of the success of conservative policy networks is that they are proactive rather
than reactive. This is, in part, because they have a strong ideological alliance, a dense, well-funded
network, are committed to cross-sector advocacy, and engage effectively in both political and
discursive strategies. Progressive networks, on the other hand, seem to lack a strong ideological
alliance, have a more precarious policy network, and have not been very politically or discursively
effective (Kovaks & Christie, 2008; Lakoff, 2008).
Although educational researchers have for some time been urged to become more policy “rele-
vant,” we want to explore in this chapter what this might mean in terms of the respective locations
of universities and think tanks within social fields. Educational researchers have studied other ac-
tors within conservative policy networks, such as venture philanthropy (Scott, 2009), consultan-
cies (Gabriel & Paulus, 2015), Edubusinesses (Burch, 2009), public–private partnerships (Scott
& DiMartino, 2009), and education management organizations (Miron, Urschel, Yat Aguilar, &
Dailey, 2011), among others. Think tanks are only one element of these policy networks, but their
ability to mobilize knowledge to influence policy has been a challenge to the efficacy of academic
researchers.
In this chapter, we explore the success of think tanks as boundary-spanning organizations that
have become effective within multiple social fields (knowledge production, media, political, and
market) to create and sustain a “common sense” that often ignores evidence based on research
and scholarship. We also explore the trade-offs that universities and educational researchers face
as they attempt to seek greater influence beyond the knowledge production field. This requires
both doing rigorous academic research for academic journals and competing with think tanks by

1 According to Haas (2007), there are three kinds of think tanks: contract (e.g., Rand), academic (often university-

affiliated, e.g., Hoover), and advocacy (e.g., Heritage). Some advocacy think tanks are more credible academically than
others (e.g., more peer-reviewed reports, Ph.D. researchers, etc.), and the term “think tank,” while at one time more neutral,
has acquired a more ideological connotation. For the purpose of this article we refer to think tanks that are independent
of universities and focus on policy advocacy, regardless of ideological affiliation.
6 G. ANDERSON, P. DE LA CRUZ, AND A. LÓPEZ

more aggressively communicating findings in ways policymakers and the general public might
access and utilize (Labaree, 1998).
Although some academics seek a more activist stance and are encouraged to behave more like
think tanks, there are fundamental problems they face because of their institutional location in
social space. Unlike universities, think tanks occupy a unique social space—part journalism, part
research, part advocacy, part lobbyist—from which to mobilize knowledge and gain influence in
multiple social sectors (Medvetz, 2012). Using Bourdieu’s (1985) concept of social field, we will
explore the implications for university-based researchers as think tanks and other producers of
knowledge seek to usurp universities as knowledge brokers and influencers of public policy.

NEW GOVERNANCE THROUGH NEW POLICY NETWORKS

From the post–World War II decades until the 1980s, U.S. educators, represented by their pro-
fessional associations and unions, had less competition from other policy actors and, therefore a
more significant voice in education policy (DeBray, 2006). These interest groups were also part of
a knowledge regime based on what Harvey (2005) calls “embedded liberalism,” that is, markets,
personal freedoms, and individual choices were embedded in regulatory and social welfare poli-
cies aimed—in theory, at least—at a common good. They viewed the schooling of low-income
children as embedded in out-of-school societal supports.
Along with fields such as public health and public administration, educational researchers have
begun mapping the emergence of new modalities of governance outside the state, but often part-
nering with the state. These modalities include new global networks of venture philanthropists,
foundations, think tanks, and edubusinesses (Anderson & Montoro Donchik, 2015; Ball, 2007,
2012; Burch, 2009; Scott, 2009). Their ability to influence education policy has become a chal-
lenge to educators and their traditionally loose networks of unions, professional associations, and
university researchers.
These relatively recent policy entrepreneurs have formed powerful policy networks aimed at
disembedding markets and individuals from regulatory policies and social welfare protections.
They view schooling as disembedded from out-of-school factors that impact children, such as
funding levels, access to health care, birth weight, food insecurity, pollution levels, racism, neigh-
borhood effects, and stresses associated with poverty (Berliner, 2009). This process of disembed-
ding requires new policies and new ways of thinking about the individual and society.
New disembedded or neoliberal policy networks have three interconnected primary goals: (a)
to critique and attempt to change public perception of current policies and create a new “common
sense” (Gramsci, 1971; Lakoff, 2008); (b) to create new policies that dismantle the current infras-
tructure of embedded liberalism and replace them with libertarian, free market-friendly policies
(Friedman, 1962); and (c) to privatize the policy process itself (Anderson & Montoro Donchik,
2015; Ball, 2012).
Think tanks represent an important node of new policy networks and are charged with the first
goal: to create a new common sense through creating political influence and promoting ideolog-
ical views through the dissemination of knowledge (McGann, 1992). Some researchers present
evidence that over time these think tanks have succeeded in moving public opinion in the United
States rightward (Burris, 2008; Domhoff, 1999; Pescheck, 1987). In the field of education, they
have been successful in promoting policies to weaken teachers’ unions, eliminate teacher tenure,
 NEW GOVERNANCE AND NEW KNOWLEDGE BROKERS 7

give vouchers to parents, increase high-stakes testing, contract services to the private sector, and
create more virtual schools, among others. Thus, they are not only adept at framing and dissem-
inating these ideological views, but also at moving them through state legislatures (Anderson &
Montoro Donchik, 2015)

THINK TANKS AS KNOWLEDGE BROKERS AND BOUNDARY

ORGANIZATIONS

Ansel, Reckhow and Kelly (2009) propose the concept of “brokerage” to explain how networks
advocate for educational causes. They describe brokers as “people who accrue social capital or
have a strategic capacity because of their position in the network” and a brokerage approach to
public policy as focused on “how public policy dynamics are influenced by people in a position to
mediate between competing factions or ideas” (p. 721). Not only people, but organizations such as
universities or think tanks can serve as knowledge brokers. According to Cooper (2014), among
these intermediary, bridging organizations are those that are focused on brokering knowledge or
research brokering organizations (RBO).
During the three decades following World War II, academics mainly served as knowledge bro-
kers. Academics such as Kenneth Clark, Patrick Moynihan, and James Coleman influenced social
policies around civil rights, Head Start, and education funding. (Even now, academics continue
to file amicus briefs that influence Supreme Court rulings.) Nevertheless, as Weiss (1977) and
others have documented, knowledge dissemination by researchers is typically a more diffuse and
indirect process, and that, when used directly, is more often used to justify decisions after the fact.
It was to some extent the perception that liberal academics had some direct and indirect influ-
ence on social policy that spurred conservatives and the business community to initiate efforts in
the 1980s to create a new set of institutions to counter this perceived liberal advantage. Among
these new institutions were think tanks (Rich, 2004). Although think tanks were not new, those
that existed previously tended to be viewed as relatively neutral, if not liberal, knowledge produc-
ers (e.g., Russel Sage, Brookings) or government contract shops (e.g., Rand). Conservative think
tanks with an explicit ideological and advocacy orientation have proliferated between 1980 and
the present.
Conservative think tanks’ network configuration and their connections to media and legislators
make them effective knowledge brokers. Many of them work through global networks and many
national think tanks operate out of Washington, DC. However, many, such as the Empire Center
for New York State Policy from our earlier example, are operating at the state level. The Empire
Center is a member of the State Policy Network (SPN), which “is made up of free market think
tanks—at least one in every state—fighting to limit government and advance market-friendly
public policy at the state and local levels” (State Policy Network, 2012) These state-level think
tanks publish reports, actively place op-ed pieces in local newspapers, and help coordinate the
promotion of neoliberal and neoconservative bills in state legislatures.
SPN and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) work in tandem. ALEC presents
itself as a “public–private partnership” because it brings together private corporations and state
legislators from the public sector to write and promote model bills in state legislatures. While
SPN, like most think tanks, straddles fields but is centered in the knowledge production field,
ALEC is centered in the political field but claims to operate in the knowledge production field
8 G. ANDERSON, P. DE LA CRUZ, AND A. LÓPEZ

FIGURE 1 Think tanks as bordering other social fields (adapted from Medvetz, 2008).

to avoid the transparency and tax implications required of lobbyist organizations (Anderson &
Montoro Donchik, 2015).
ALEC and the SPN are both examples of how effectively think tanks work with the media,
state legislatures, wealthy individuals, venture philanthropists, and corporations. Using the liter-
ature from organizational theory on “boundary spanners” and Eyal’s concept of “spaces between
fields,” Medvetz (2012) developed the concept of think tanks as boundary organizations, “spe-
cialized in mediating the relationships among more established fields” (p. 114).
Educational researchers, along with universities in general, form part of the social field of
knowledge production. Schools of education, as with all professional schools, are boundary or-
ganizations in the sense that they not only produce knowledge, but also train teachers, counselors,
and administrators and have an impact on curriculum and instruction in schools. This places them
in the interstices between universities and schools—between the social fields of knowledge pro-
duction and education.
In this sense, schools of education are also boundary organizations and knowledge bro-
kers, in that they have struggled with how to make their knowledge relevant to the needs of
practitioners. Their position within social fields raises two somewhat different dilemmas: how
to create and disseminate knowledge to practitioners in schools and school districts and how to
influence education policy through providing research evidence.
Both dilemmas call into question traditional models of knowledge mobilization that posit the
creation of knowledge in universities, its dissemination though conferences and journals, and its
utilization by practitioners and policymakers. Intermediary organizations that are more effective
at influencing social and educational policy as well as alternative pathways to teacher and princi-
pal training have challenged schools of education. As a result, the traditional model of knowledge
mobilization has come under increasing scrutiny (Dumas & Anderson, 2014).
However, unlike think tanks, schools of education have not made significant inroads into hav-
ing an impact on the political, media, or economic/market social fields (See Figure 1). As educa-
tional researchers attempt to expand their boundaries within these social fields, they experience a
series of dilemmas that field theory can help to illuminate (Bourdieu, 1985, 1989, 2005; Fligstein
& McAdam, 2015).
 NEW GOVERNANCE AND NEW KNOWLEDGE BROKERS 9

Traditionally, organizations such as universities had the goal to accrue power within their own
field (i.e., the field of knowledge production in Figure 1). However, as think tanks have effectively
accrued power in several social fields, they have changed the rules of the game, forcing university
researchers to either consolidate power within their own field, making them less relevant to the
others, or venture into other fields. This boundary organization strategy can backfire to the extent
that they lose their claim to rigorous and neutral knowledge production.2
Ironically, the withdrawal of funding by the state and the subsequent pressure on educational
researchers to do “sponsored” research increasingly funded by nonprofit and for-profit (e.g.,
Microsoft) organizations has forced universities into the economic/market social field. Moving
into this social field may call into question the extent to which educational researchers conduct
truly independent research. Producing knowledge that serves commercial interests addition-
ally compromises university researchers in more lucrative fields, such as computer science
and engineering (Ward, 2012).3 Whereas a move into the political social field could be risky
because academics could be considered policy advocates (like think tanks), a move into the
economic/market field has led to charges of academic capitalism (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004).

THEORIZING EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH WITHIN FIELDS OF POWER

Social fields are also power fields as organizations struggle for dominance within a field. Medvetz
(2008) argues that think tanks are not organizations that struggle for dominance within a social
field, but rather represent a hybrid interstitial field that accrues power to the extent that it draws on
the structures and status of organizations in other fields. The dilemma of the university and its role
beyond the knowledge generation field involves trade-offs between heteronomy and autonomy
(Medvetz, 2008).
To the extent that universities seek heteronomy by behaving more like a boundary organiza-
tion, the more they may sacrifice autonomy and, consequently, power and status within their own
social field. The university community already considers educational researchers as low status,
therefore it can be argued that educational researchers can ill afford to be viewed as advocacy re-
searchers. Although maintaining their relative scholarly independence has been most challenging
with regard to the economic/market field and the move toward academic capitalism (Slaughter &
Rhoades, 2004), researchers, unlike think tanks, also must carefully define their relationship with
the state. The American Psychological Association has learned this lesson, as it has become em-
broiled in controversy over changing its ethics rules so its members could participate in the CIA’s
torture program. The U.S. government is the largest employer of psychologists (Horton, 2014).
In spite of the risks of being a boundary organization, universities find that their position within
their field may be enhanced by drawing on the status of other fields, particularly as it relates to
their brand. As universities become more entrepreneurial, faculty are increasingly rewarded for

2 We are not arguing here that university-based research is “objective” or “neutral,” particularly as it is increasingly

“sponsored,” but that its institutional legitimacy depends on this perception.

3 Some education researchers have entered the economic field through becoming vendors of textbooks, consultancies,

evaluation models, etc. While impacting practice (for good or ill), the most ambitious efforts have been standardized in
the process of “scaling up” and profit-seeking (e.g., EdTPA, Success for All, Balanced Literacy, etc.; Anderson & Herr,
2011).
10 G. ANDERSON, P. DE LA CRUZ, AND A. LÓPEZ

citing media as they enhance the visibility and profile of the university. Further research is needed
to explore how universities may be repositioning themselves within social fields. It is important to
better understand the calculation of benefits and risks entailed as educational researchers attempt
to more aggressively enter the policy conversation and have a greater impact on policy outcomes.

EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHERS AS KNOWLEDGE BROKERS

Many educational researchers feel dissonance between what they see as their irrelevance to the
policy community and their commitment to rigorous research and their other duties as university
faculty. Not only are they competing with think tanks, but also other intermediary organizations
that mediate knowledge dissemination. For instance, technology has allowed conventional gate-
keepers such as universities to be bypassed. There are now thousands of websites, blogs, listservs,
podcasts, and Twitter accounts that disseminate knowledge outside the purvey of universities.
Documentaries such as Waiting for Superman, The Lottery, and The Cartel promote quasi-markets
in education, as do movies such as Stand your Ground (Lubienski, Scott, & Debray, 2014).
Can educational researchers retain legitimacy within the social field of knowledge production
and also become effective advocates, able to compete with the dense networks of think tanks and
other intermediary organizations, many bipartisan, that promote neoliberal reforms? This would
be a daunting task for academics whose work already has intensified through increased teaching
loads, 24/7 access through the Internet, and increased faculty governance and marketing duties.
On the other hand, today’s policy entrepreneurs, including think tank “researchers,” not only
enjoy the sponsorship of corporate philanthropy, they engage full time in advocacy work and
straddle multiple sectors:

Network members move between sites and across the private and public sectors. They move within
and across nations. Many have multiple positions, sequentially and concurrently. They act as trustees
for each others’ organisations and sit on each others’ advisory councils. They write, speak and “appear
on platforms” at each other’s events. Ideas gain momentum and support and are disseminated through
and beyond networks by repetition, reiteration, rearticulation, quotation, cross-referencing, collabo-
rations and co-authoring, co-publishing and associate memberships. “Venues of dialogue,” actual and
virtual, are created (events, fora, discussions, launches) and relations with the media are important,
including in-house journals and magazines, websites, gateways and print newspapers. (Ball & Exley,
2010, p. 155)

Although educational researchers may not be able to compete with the funding and know-how
of these new organizations and individuals, there is a growing chorus of scholars who are call-
ing for similar tactics and strategies. Kovacs and Christie (2008) identify a need for “progressive
scholars to develop infrastructure, translate academic work, amplify the message, and make their
work accessible to legislators” (p. 13). Yettick (2011) proposes that professors, in order to in-
crease mentions of peer-reviewed research in the media, write op-eds or letters to the editor, and
signal that they are willing to be interviewed; serve as educator-experts for journalists; and con-
tact journalists to achieve a more positive public attitude toward research and educate the general
public.
 NEW GOVERNANCE AND NEW KNOWLEDGE BROKERS 11

Conservative think tanks are experts at these matters. As McDonald (2014) points out:

The majority of think tanks have media relations departments that not only take press inquiries, but
develop ongoing relationships with newspaper, television, and radio outlets. These media consultants
are often able to call around to promote a particular study, get op-eds placed, or provide a list of
experts, available for comment at a moment’s notice. In addition, think tanks use their web pages and
periodic emails to alert the public and policy makers to crucial policy debates. (p. 853)

The active promotion of think tanks and policy advocates contrasts with university researchers,
who seldom have public relations teams, direct media access, or relationships with members of
congress (McDonald, 2014). Malin and Lubienski (2015) argue that today the effectiveness of
policy advocates relies on their engagement with social media such as blogs and Twitter, and
connections with individuals who possess substantial media acumen. It remains to be seen how
well academic researchers can adapt to the need to use social media, and, if they can, to what
extent they can do so without sacrificing the quality of their work.

SEEKING A POLITICAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT

What is sometimes lost in discussions of think tanks, the media, and policy networks is that these
new policy networks represent new forms of governance and governmentality. They represent new
governance in the sense that these groups that operate largely outside the state and its democratic
structures are essentially making public policy. They represent governmentality to the extent that
logics transferred from the private sector are producing new entrepreneurial professional identities
to replace those of professionals working for a common public good (Anderson & Cohen, 2015).
The stakes are extremely high, and the emergence of these new forms of governance has politically
marginalized educational researchers and K–12 educators and their unions.
This marginalization is in part due to the fact that educational researchers and educators have
eschewed moving into the political field because they do not want to be considered advocates or
“political.” There is a perception that both teachers and researchers are expected to be neutral. At
best, they might advocate for additional funding from the government for schools and educational
research, but otherwise, they should largely remain within their respective social fields, those of
knowledge production and education.
However, as noted above, what complicates this picture is that as the state (national, state, and
local) withdraws from funding social infrastructure, including universities and schools, educators
and educational researchers are increasingly forced to seek funding through other sources, push-
ing them increasingly into the market/economic social field. This brings educational researchers
more under the influence of “sponsors” who are increasingly private foundations, wealthy individ-
uals, and corporations. So although educational researchers may be uncomfortable entering the
political field for fear of losing their “neutrality,” their entrance into the economic field is having
the same effect. Those who fund their research are increasingly influencing it (Ward, 2012).
Most new wealth is not going to fund research, but rather influence policy more directly and
more effectively. In the late 1990s, Ron Unz, a Republican businessman, blamed bilingual pro-
grams for the lower educational achievement of English Language Learners (ELLs) in California
and was influential in dismantling bilingual programs in the state through the passage of Propo-
12 G. ANDERSON, P. DE LA CRUZ, AND A. LÓPEZ

sition 227. Mr. Unz spent a million dollars on his campaign, but perhaps more important, used
his money and influence to “spin” the issue. He engaged the help of high-profile Latinos in his
efforts, wrote op-ed pieces in Spanish-language newspapers, played on his previous opposition to
Proposition 187, presented bilingual education as not teaching English, and repeated a short and
seemingly logical argument that could be easily understood and followed by journalists and the
public: the children need to learn English, so let us place them in all-English classes as quickly
as possible.
In response, researchers presented complex, nuanced, and evidence-based explanations in fa-
vor of bilingual programs that journalists found “unsatisfying” (Crawford, 1997). In the end,
according to Crawford (1997), “more than 600 newspaper articles (not to mention countless ra-
dio and television broadcasts) appeared on the anti-bilingual initiative [and] most of these reports
featured inflammatory charges by Ron Unz, rarely accompanied by effective counter-arguments”
(p. 5). Although the influx of private money was important in the 1990s in leveraging the media,
it could often be countered by contributions from teachers’ unions, as was the case in the battle
over bilingual education.
Today, policy networks and foundations spend more money and are denser and more bipartisan.
The Gates Foundation spent $200 million to promote the Common Core standards. What most
people do not know is that Bill Gates also gave large sums of money to the American Federation
of Teachers, the National Education Association, and business organizations such as the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, and funded scholars from across the political spectrum to get bipartisan
support for his Common Core initiative.

Because in most states, they were adopted by appointed state school boards, the Common Core was
instituted in many states without a single vote taken by an elected lawmaker. Kentucky even adopted
the standards before the final draft had been made public. States were responding to a “common belief
system supported by widespread investments,” according to one former Gates employee who spoke
on the condition of anonymity to avoid antagonizing the foundation. (Layton, 2014)

Venture philanthropists who fund think tanks and other brokering organizations are seeking a
return on investment, and the desired return is not financial, but political influence.

CONCLUSION: IS POLITICAL MARGINALIZATION INEVITABLE?

The power of these policy networks and the massive funding they receive can seem daunting,
but bipartisan opposition to the Common Core Standards is being mobilized, and, for good or
ill, many states are reversing course. This is largely the result of the use of social media and the
formation of counter-networks on both the political Right and Left. It is through these counter-
networks that educational researchers and educators can make inroads, especially through the use
of media, and social media in particular.
If we consider, as Medvetz (2012) proposes, that think tanks are immersed in a permanent
balancing act in which they juggle resources from different fields, we can understand the need for
them to be up-to-date in each novel platform that can allow them to exercise influence. The use
of the Internet and social media platforms could help academics develop a network configuration
such as the ones think tanks have devised, which has become so central to their strength. Although
 NEW GOVERNANCE AND NEW KNOWLEDGE BROKERS 13

academics have been meeting and networking in annual conferences for years, their work is still
mostly an individual endeavor and contributes to the relatively low impact of their research. Even
when academics use social media, it is typically passive (e.g., websites) rather than interactive
(Facebook, Twitter, online forums, blogs). Social media, especially interactive media, can help
academics initiate conversations that can move back and forth between the cyber and physical
worlds (Baker, 2015). They can also become part of other communities of interest locally and
globally around a particular topic.
Younger scholars, more likely to use Twitter, are finding that it can expand their access and
opportunities not only within academia, but also outside. Some academics are experimenting with
an array of media, such as TED talks (or ED talks), that reach broader audiences and yet retain
a sense of research rigor. However, Cooper (2014) presents data that shows that universities and
research institutes are not using many online strategies in addition to their organizational websites.
This may, in part, be due to a lack of knowledge about social media tools for researchers (Cann,
Dimitriou & Hooley, 2011), but it also points to the need for academics to balance online time
with the demand for traditional forms of research for tenure and promotion.
However, this interest convergence of the entrepreneurial university with a desire on the part
of academics to have greater policy relevance is fraught with potential pitfalls. As scholars are
encouraged to become more entrepreneurial, they, like their employers, come more and more
under the influence of corporations, foundations, and venture philanthropists, who are unlikely
to fund research that departs too sharply from their material interests or political ideology. This
means that university scholars may have to be boundary scholars, who, much like think tanks,
seek to operate in the interstices of social fields. They will have to strategically manage their
location within the economic and political fields, while entering the media field.
Of course, there are risks to universities and scholars in becoming boundary organizations and
individuals. But the growing sense that their work is largely irrelevant to policymakers and that
the continued withdrawal of the state from funding education (and other social infrastructure) are
emboldening a younger generation of scholars to seek alternatives. Well-funded think tanks and
new forms of network governance are here to stay, and educational researchers will either find
ways to more actively use social media to form counter-networks or, they will remain irrelevant
beyond their own social field. As we move into unchartered territory, we believe using social field
theory may provide some conceptual and strategic guideposts along the way.

AUTHOR BIOS

Gary Anderson is Professor in the Educational Leadership program at New York University. A
former high school teacher and principal, he has published on topics such as critical ethnography,
participatory action research, school micro-politics, education policy, and educational leadership.
His most recent books are Advocacy Leadership: Toward a Post-Reform Agenda (2009, Rout-
ledge) and The Action Research Dissertation: A Guide for Students and Faculty, Second Edition
(2014, Sage).

Pedro De La Cruz is in New York University’s Educational Leadership program. He has served
in the NYC Department of Education, as teacher, principal, and central office administrator. He
studies how policies have an impact on traditionally marginalized students.
14 G. ANDERSON, P. DE LA CRUZ, AND A. LÓPEZ

Andrea López is a doctoral candidate in Educational Leadership at New York University. An-
drea participated in educational support programs for Chilean public schools, and her interests
include citizenship education and social justice art education.

REFERENCES

Anderson, G. L., & Cohen, M. (2015). Redesigning the identities of teachers and leaders: A framework for studying new
professionalism and educator resistance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(91). doi:10.14507/epaa.v23.2086
Anderson, G. L., & Herr, K. (2011). Scaling up “evidence-based” practices for teachers is a profitable but discredited
paradigm. Educational Researcher, 40(6), 287–289.
Anderson, G. L., & Montoro Donchik, L. (2015). The privatization of education and policy-making: The American Leg-
islative Exchange Council (ALEC) and network governance in the United States. Educational Policy. Advance online
publication. doi:10.1177/0895904814528794
Ansel, C., Reckhow, S., & Kelly, A. (2009). How to reform a reform coalition: Outreach, agenda expansion, and brokerage
in urban school reform. The Policy Studies Journal, 37(4), 717–743.
Baker, M. (2015). Social media: A network boost. Nature, 518(7538), 263–265.
Ball, S. (2007). Education plc. Understanding private sector participation in public sector education. London, England:
Routledge.
Ball, S. (2012). Global Education Inc.: New policy networks and the neo-liberal imaginary. London, England:
Routledge.
Ball, S., & Exley, S. (2010). Making policy with “good ideas”: Policy networks and the “intellectuals” of New Labour.
Journal of Education Policy, 25(2), 151–169.
Berliner, D. (2009). Poverty and potential: Out-of-school factors and school success. Retrieved from
http://epicpolicy.org/publication/poverty-and-potential
Blain, G. (2015, February 13). More retired teachers are pocketing six-figure pensions. New York Daily News. Retrieved
from http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/education/retired-teachers-pocketing-six-figure-pensions-article-
1.2113836
Bourdieu, P. (1985). The genesis of the concepts of habitus and field. Sociocriticism, 2(2), 11–24.
Bourdieu, P. (1989). The state nobility: Elite schools in the field of power. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (2005). The political field, the social science field, and the journalistic field. In R. Benson & E. Neveu (Eds.),
Bourdieu and the journalistic field (pp. 29–47). Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Burch, P. (2009). Hidden markets: The new education privatization. New York, NY: Routledge.
Burris, V. (2008). The interlock structure of the policy-planning network and the right turn in U.S. state policy. Research
in Political Sociology, 17, 3–42.
Cann, A., Dimitriou, K., & Hooley, T. (2011). Social media: A guide for researchers. Retrieved from
http://www.rin.ac.uk/social-media-guide
Cooper, A. (2014). The use of online strategies and social media for research dissemination in education. Education Policy
Analysis Archives, 22(88). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1049968.pdf
Crawford, J. C. (1997). The campaign against Proposition 227: A post mortem. Bilingual Research Journal, 21(1), 1–
29.
DeBray, E. (2006). Politics, ideology, and education: Federal policy during the Clinton and Bush administrations. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Domhoff, G. W. (1999). Who rules America 2000. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Dumas, M., & Anderson, G. (2014). Qualitative research as policy knowledge: Framing policy problems and
transforming education from the ground up. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(11). Retrieved from
http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/2750/275031898042.pdf
Fligstein, N., & McAdam, D. (2015). A theory of fields. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Gabriel, R., & Paulus, T. (2015). Committees and controversy: Consultants in the construction of education policy. Edu-
cational Policy 29, 984–1011. doi:10.1177/0895904814531650
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. New York, NY: International Publishers.
 NEW GOVERNANCE AND NEW KNOWLEDGE BROKERS 15

Haas, E. (2007). Think tanks. In G. Anderson & K. Herr (Eds.), The encyclopedia of activism and social justice (Vol. 3,
pp. 11–14). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Horton, S. (2014, October 28). The APA grapples with its torture demons: Six questions for Nathaniel Raymond. Harper’s
Magazine. Retrieved from http://harpers.org/blog/2014/10/the-apa-grapples-with-its-torture-demons-six-questions-
for-nathaniel-raymond/
Kovacs, P., & Christie, H. (2008). The Gates’ foundation and the future of U.S. public education: A call for scholars to
counter misinformation campaigns. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 6(2), 1–20.
Labaree, D. F. (1998). Educational researchers: Living with a lesser form of knowledge. Educational Researcher, 27(8),
4–12.
Lakoff, G. (2008). Thinking points: Communicating our American values and vision. San Francisco, CA: Rockbridge
Institute.
Layton, L. (2014, June 7). How Bill Gates pulled off the swift Common Core revolution: A new era of influence.
The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-bill-gates-pulled-off-the-swift-
common-core-revolution/2014/06/07/a830e32e-ec34-11e3-9f5c-9075d5508f0a_story.html
Lubienski, C., Scott, J., & Debray, E. (2014). The politics of research production, promotion, and utilization in educational
policy. Educational Policy, 28(2), 131–144.
Malin, J., & Lubienski, C. (2015). Educational expertise, advocacy, and media influence. Educational Policy Analysis
Archives, 23(6). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1051683.pdf
McDonald, L. (2014). Think tanks and the media: How the conservative movement gained entry into the education policy
arena. Educational Policy, 28(6), 845–880.
McGann, J. G. (1992). Academics to ideologues: A brief history of the public policy research industry. PS: Political
Science and Politics, 25(4), 733–740.
Medvetz, T. (2008, October). Think tanks as an emergent field. Brooklyn, NY: Social Science Research Council.
Medvetz, T. (2012). Murky power: “Think tanks” as boundary organizations. Research in the Sociology of Organizations,
34(1), 113–133.
Miron, G., Urschel, J. L., Yat Aguilar, M. A., & Dailey, B. (2011). Profiles of for-profit and non-profit education manage-
ment organizations: Thirteenth annual report, 2010–2011. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/EMO-
profiles-10-11
Pescheck, J. (1987). Policy planning organizations: Elite agendas and America’s rightward turn. Philadelphia, PA: Tem-
ple University Press.
Rich, A. (2004). Think tanks, public policy, and the politics of expertise. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Scott, J. (2009). The politics of venture philanthropy in charter school policy and advocacy. Educational Policy, 23(1),
106–136.
Scott, J., & DiMartino, C. (2009). Public education under new management: A typology of educational privatization
applied to New York City’s restructuring. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(3), 432–452.
Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
State Policy Network. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.spn.org/
Ward, S. (2012). Neoliberalism and the global restructuring of knowledge and education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Weiss, C. (1977). Research for policy’s sake: The enlightenment function of social research. Policy Analysis, 3(Fall),
531–545.
Yettick, H. (2011). Media, think tanks and educational research. Academe, 97(3), 17–20.