IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v82y2001i3p583-601.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Politics of Expertise in Congress and the News Media

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew Rich

Abstract

Objective. Experts are increasingly active in U.S. policymaking, but what accounts for their varied visibility is unclear. The agenda‐setting and media studies literature suggest that experts are generally neutral, distant actors in policymaking whose products are made visible by Congress and the news media when helpful. This study examines how and when the intentional efforts of experts can also affect their relative visibility and whether a proliferation of expert organizations, as has occurred in American policymaking in recent decades, is correctly viewed as creating conditions for more rational, thoughtful decisionmaking, as some existing scholarship might suggest. Methods. I consider the conveyance of expertise among a sample of 66 public policy think tanks in congressional testimony and three national newspapers between 1991 and 1995. In a multivariate analysis, I evaluate what accounts for the quantity of congressional and media visibility. I then use a content analysis to examine differences in the nature of visibility received by think tanks. Results. Washington‐based think tanks and think tanks of no identifiable ideology have some advantage in gaining congressional and media visibility overall. Think tanks deemed credible receive more, and more substantive, visibility than those that are ideological and marketing‐oriented. Conclusions. Cumulatively, my findings suggest that more credible, staid, not identifiably ideological expert organizations are slightly favored by congressional staff members and journalists to provide guidance on issues and news stories. More ideological and marketing‐oriented sources of expertise, by contrast, are more relied upon to build support for ideas, either in staged congressional hearings or on the editorial pages of newspapers. Expert organizations can affect their relative visibility; the evidence is mixed on whether their proliferation makes policymaking and decisionmaking better informed or more rational or thoughtful.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew Rich, 2001. "The Politics of Expertise in Congress and the News Media," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 82(3), pages 583-601, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:82:y:2001:i:3:p:583-601
    DOI: 10.1111/0038-4941.00044
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/0038-4941.00044
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/0038-4941.00044?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Witting Antje, 2015. "Measuring the Use of Knowledge in Policy Development," Central European Journal of Public Policy, Sciendo, vol. 9(2), pages 54-62, December.
    2. Bert Fraussen & Darren Halpin, 2017. "Think tanks and strategic policy-making: the contribution of think tanks to policy advisory systems," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(1), pages 105-124, March.
    3. Walker, Tom & Ryan, Jim & Kelley, Tim, 2010. "Impact Assessment of Policy-Oriented International Agricultural Research: Evidence and Insights from Case Studies," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 1453-1461, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:bla:socsci:v:82:y:2001:i:3:p:583-601. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    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.