Murky Power: “Think Tanks” as Boundary Organizations

Thomas Medvetz

doi:10.1108/S0733-558X(2012)0000034007

Login

Welcome:
Guest

Search for:

Browse:

Product Information:

Resources:

Research in the Sociology of Organizations

ISSN: 0733-558X
Series editor(s): Professor Michael Lounsbury

Subject Area: Organization Studies

Content: Series Volumes | Current Volume RSS

Options: To add Favourites and Table of Contents Alerts please take a Emerald profile

Document request:
Murky Power: “Think Tanks” as Boundary Organizations

Document Information:
Title:	Murky Power: “Think Tanks” as Boundary Organizations
Author(s):	Thomas Medvetz
Volume:	34 Editor(s): David Courpasson, Damon Golsorkhi, Jeffrey J. Sallaz ISBN: 978-1-78052-664-5 eISBN: 978-1-78052-665-2
Citation:	Thomas Medvetz (2012), Murky Power: “Think Tanks” as Boundary Organizations, in David Courpasson, Damon Golsorkhi, Jeffrey J. Sallaz (ed.) Rethinking Power in Organizations, Institutions, and Markets (Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Volume 34), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.113-133
DOI:	10.1108/S0733-558X(2012)0000034007 (Permanent URL)
Publisher:	Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Article type:	Chapter Item
Abstract:	This chapter uses the case of American think tanks to develop the idea of a “boundary organization,” or a formal organization that acquires its distinctiveness and efficacy from its intermediate location in the social structure. Traversing, overlapping, and incorporating the logics of multiple institutional spheres – including those of academia, politics, business, and the market – think tanks at first seem to be organizations “divided against themselves.” However, by gathering complex mixtures of otherwise discordant resources, they create novel products, carry out novel practices, and claim for themselves a crucial mediating role in the social structure. This chapter's ultimate aim is to consider the implications of this idea for theories of organizational power. With respect to this aim, I argue that boundary organizations – and organizational boundary-making processes in general – underscore the need to think about power in relational and processional terms.