智库的传播与影响力指标

FRED KUNTZ

[摘 要] 智库传播，重在通过对的方法，将对的信息传给对的人。智库传播渠道多种多样：对于高层领导人，最好的方法是在小型会议上亲自向领导呈上研究成果；对于中层官员，可通过会议、研讨会、文件及相关政策简报等联系；对于学者，可通过精心撰写的调查报告和学术著作以沟通；而对于普罗大众，一般通过网络和新闻媒介进行传播。在创造影响力方面，智库除了组织调查、进行分析、发现政策问题或是分享政策理念之外，还可以扩展其角色。对智库进行评估，可以考虑很多指标，其评估结果产生的宝贵经验有助于智库改进工作。

[关键词] 智库；传播；影响力；指标

[中图分类号] C932 [文献标识码] A [文章编号] 1002-8129（2016）08-0093-08

This blog is based on a presentation made at the conference “Think Tanks Facing the Changing World，” hosted by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing， June 17-18， 2013.

本博客信息来源于2013年6月17-18日，中国社会科学院在北京举办的“智库：面对变化中的世界”研讨会上的一次主题演讲。

Today， many of the worlds 5，500 think tanks are seeking more effective ways to communicate， to increase their impact – and exploring better ways to measure that impact.

如今，世界5500多家智库正在寻找更加有效的方式传播，以增强其影响力，并探索更好的方式来衡量其影响力。

My views on these tasks are shaped by 35 years in communications， including in newspapers and news websites， as well as my work these past three years with an independent， non-partisan global think tank， The Centre for International Governance Innovation （CIGI）.

我对于智库交流与影响力评估方法方面的观点，是基于自己过去3年里与“国际管理创新中心（CIGI）”这一独立无党派的全球智库的合作经验，以及35年来的传播经验，包括与各报社和新闻网站的沟通经历。

For any organization， including think tanks， good communications begin with the creation of an overall strategic plan. This may seem obvious， but any enterprise is more likely to succeed with a clear mission and goals （many of us can identify cases where a muddy plan led to poor results）. Mission is a definition of purpose. Goals define what success will look like： the desired impact.

对于包括智库在内的任何组织而言，良好的交流始于总体战略规划的制定。这似乎是显而易见的。但是拥有清晰使命和目标的企业的确更可能获得成功（许多人都能鉴别因为规划混乱会导致效果不佳的案例）。使命是对意向的界定；目标则是描绘未来的成功蓝图，即要想到达的效果。

Tactics are the actions necessary to achieve those goals. It helps everyone in the organization if a strategy combining these elements in a logical fashion is written consultatively， then shared internally， so that each person can see how his or her work contributes to the overall plan.

要想实现这些目标，制定战术非常有必要。一份将这些因素合理组合的战略，如果以书面咨询形式呈现，然后在内部共享，它就可以让团队的每个人受益，让每个人都能明白自己的工作对总体规划的贡献。

A traditional view of think tanks is that their strategy requires them to conduct research and analysis to develop policy ideas， and then communicate their policy ideas both directly and indirectly. They can communicate directly， to policy makers who exercise power by making decisions. They can also communicate indirectly， to policy influencers， such as the media， scholars and citizens.

传统上对智库的看法是，智库战略要求他们进行研究分析，得出政策意见，然后直接或间接地对外传播。为此，他们可以选择与权威的政策制定者直接交流，也可以借助媒体、学者和公民等政策影响者间接传播。

One challenge， however， is measuring the influence of think tanks， especially in the areas of policy impact， to assess whether the strategic plan was successful. The problem is one of attribution — who gets the credit for a policy that is implemented？ Policy input comes from many places. Public or governmental policy development is a complex and iterative process in which policy ideas are researched， analyzed， discussed and refined — often through broad consultations with many stakeholders. When a policy is finally adopted， it may wear the fingerprints of many hands. For these reasons， a think tank cannot always claim success and say， “this policy was our idea.” In many cases， it would be highly unusual for a political leader to give credit to a particular think tank for a specific policy； such leaders must take ownership of their own policies， to be accountable for them.

然而，智库面临的一个挑战就是评估其影响力，尤其是如何在政策影响力领域评估其战略规划是否成功。这是一个归因问题，即谁是已实施政策的功臣？一项政策的制定有多方面的原因。国家或政府政策的制定是一个复杂且反复的过程。政策理念在经过了众多利益相关者的广泛商讨后被调研、分析、讨论与完善。政策最终通过，往往是多方达成共识的结果。基于这些原因，智库通常不会为自己喝彩，声称“该政策是我们的智慧结晶”。许多案例表明，极罕见有政治领袖因为某一政策而赞许某一家智库；这些领袖们认为那是他们的政策，解释权在他们手中。

In creating impact， a think tank can extend its role beyond that of conducting research， analyzing and identifying policy problems or sharing policy ideas. For example， think tanks also have the ability to convene meetings of different groups at conferences， seminars and workshops — to connect people and to facilitate dialogue. As conveners， think tanks have the ability to build bridges among diverse groups such as policy makers， non-governmental organizations， academics， business leaders and the media. In this way， think tanks can create a sort of “Track II” process — a catalytic role in which the think tanks own influence is， once again， hard to measure. Think tanks may also have a role in education； through training programs， education and outreach， think tanks can help to develop the next generation of diplomats， bureaucrats and political leaders.

在创造影响力方面，智库除了组织调查、进行分析、发现政策问题或是分享政策理念之外，还可以扩展其角色。比如智库能够召集不同的群体参与大会、研讨会及讲习班，从而联系群众，方便对话。作为会议召集者，智库是决策者、非政府组织、学术界、商界领袖和媒体等不同团体跨界交流的桥梁。这样，智库创造了一种“第二轨迹”的影响力——一种如催化剂般协调推动的作用，其间，智库也很难评估其自身的影响力。通过培训项目、教育和宣传推广，智库也可以在教育领域发挥其作用，因为这有助于培养下一代外交家、官员和政治领袖。

In communications， it is important for think tanks to reach the right people， with the right message， using the right method. Think tanks use a variety of communications channels — as different channels may be more effective with certain audiences. To reach top leaders， for example， an ineffective method would be to rely on academic-style research papers — because high-level leaders are busy and have little time to read. ？The best method of outreach to senior leaders might be small meetings to present research findings in person – but this depends on having access to leaders， through a think tanks network of people with excellent connections. Meanwhile， middle-level officials can be reached through multiple channels， such as conferences， workshops， papers and policy briefs （research papers might be 5，000 to 10，000 words， or more； but policy briefs are shorter documents of 1，000 to 1，500 words， which distill the key policy recommendations into a few concise findings or policy recommendations）. Academics and scholars are more easily reached through well-written research papers and scholarly books. The wider public can best be reached through accessible websites and through the news media. For outreach through news media， think tanks must deploy skilled communications specialists to create and send news releases written in journalistic style， and who will follow up personally with journalists with whom they have developed relationships through regular contact. Other channels of communications include social media， newsletters （including email newsletters） and annual reports — each suitable to a particular audience. Good communication plans use a combination of all of these channels to achieve the greatest impact.

智库传播，重在通过对的方法，将对的信息，传给对的人。智库传播渠道多种多样——因为不同的渠道针对特定的受众可能会更有效。比如，对高层领导人而言，学术研究论文式的沟通方式是无效的，因为高层领导们都很忙，几乎没阅读时间。最好的方法是在小型会议上亲自向领导呈上研究成果，但是这种方法取决于智库能否通过其卓越有效的人脉关系接触到领导者。同时，中层官员可以通过多种渠道联系，比如会议、研讨会、文件和政策简报（研究报告约5000到10000字，或更多；而政策简报应简短，用1000至1500字将主要观点提炼成几条简洁的结论或政策建议）。对于学者，更容易通过他们精心撰写的调查报告或学术著作与领导人沟通。而对于普罗大众，最好的方法是通过网络和新闻媒介进行传播。倘若想借助新闻媒介的宣传，智库可聘用娴熟的通讯员：经常跟媒体打交道，还可以定期接触媒体、与媒体搞好关系，请他们以新闻形式撰写和发布新闻稿。至于其他传播渠道包括社交媒体，时事通讯（包括电子邮件通讯）和年度报告等等——每种方式都有特定的受众。好的传播计划会综合使用上述所有渠道，以发挥最大的影响力。

The “Cycle of Impact” for a think tank has three phases. The first phase is to Plan. Researchers within think tanks consult with policy makers to better understand the challenges and issues those policy makers are facing； they design projects to address those topics， and the design includes an allocation of resources， budgets， staff and timelines. The second phase is to Engage. The think tank may engage in deep research and analysis of the topic， including the historical context and policy options； it may also convene conferences and public or private meetings as necessary； and it may communicate its findings through publications， websites and social media. The final step is to Measure.

智库的“影响力周期”分为三个阶段：第一个阶段是规划。智库的研究员与决策者协商，以便更好地了解决策者面临的挑战与难题；研究者会通过设计来讨论这些课题，这些设计包括资源、预算、员工与时间表的分配。第二个阶段是执行。智库会对调查项目进行深入的研究分析，包括其历史背景和政策选择；如果有必要，智库会召开研讨会及公开或秘密的会议；还可以通过出版物、网站和社交媒体交流他们的研究成果。最后一个阶段当然是评估。

The think tank may track the quantity of outputs in publications， media mentions， website traffic and social media hits； it may evaluate the quality of the outputs （even if this is a subjective judgment） and it may even try to assess the actual impact on public policies （although this raises the difficulty of attribution， as discussed earlier）； and it may report on these measurements to stakeholders， such as funders of the think tank. The third phase is the easiest to overlook， but measuring outcomes can yield valuable lessons to help a think tank improve its work.

智库可以通过出版物发行量、媒体提及量、网站流量和社会媒体点击量追踪影响力输出的数量指标，也可以评估影响力输出的质量指标（尽管这是一个主观判断），甚至可以尝试评估智库对公众政策的实际影响力（正如前文所提及，不过这样便增加了评估难度）。智库可以向利益相关者汇报这些评估结果，比如智库的投资人。第三阶段是最容易忽略的，但是评估结果产生的宝贵经验却有助于智库改进工作。

We can think of many things to measure at a think tank. What follows is a list of 15 possible metrics， as suggested by various experts on think tanks — and unfortunately， the more useful ones to consider may also be the hardest to measure in exact numbers. These metrics can be grouped， with the first five metrics being measures of Exposure， based on an assumption that more influential think tanks are more exposed to public view.

对智库进行评估，可以考虑到很多指标。下面罗列的是不同领域的专家就智库提出的15条可行的评判标准——可惜的是，可供参考的较实用的指标却最难用具体数字衡量。这些指标可以分组，前5个指标为曝光度组，分组依据是智库越有影响力，其在公众视野中的曝光度越高。

1.Media mentions.These are citations of the think tank， by name， in media such as newspapers and news websites. Some third-party services can be hired to measure citations， or think-tank staff can search the Web with Internet search engines. Online searches are imperfect， however； they may not capture references that occur in traditional print only， or on television or radio； and they may miss citations behind pay walls or other security measures.

1.媒体提及率。媒体对智库成果的引用，例如报纸和新闻网站。可以招募第三方服务商来评估引用，也可以让智库员工自己用互联网引擎搜索。在线搜索并不完美，因为引擎可能无法捕捉到出现在传统纸质媒体、电视或者广播中的参考文献，并且忽略了那些躲避网络支付系统和安全措施的网页引用。

2.Number and type of publications. This is strictly a quantitative measure of the think tanks publications， and does not evaluate the actual content of the publications as being of a high quality or not.

2.出版物的数量和类型。这是对智库出版物的一个严格的量化评估，并不对出版物内容质量的优劣进行评估。

3.Scholarly citations. These include citations of the think tanks work in academic journals.

3.学术引文。这包括学术期刊对智库成果的引用。

4.Government citations. These include citations of the think tanks work in government meetings or official party proceedings.

4.政府引用。该引用包括政府机关会议或官方会议记录对智库成果的引用。

5.Think tank ratings. How did the think tank fare in annual ratings， such as those produced by the University of Pennsylvania？ Some critics see such rankings as mere popularity votes， based on perceptions only， with methodologies that do not take into account different structures， funders， missions or other characteristics of think tanks. Nevertheless， the ratings do garner considerable attention.

5.智库评级。在年度排行中，比如由美国宾夕法尼亚大学发布的排行榜，智库排名情况如何？一些评论家认为，这些排名不过是基于个人主观判断的人气投票，所采用的方法并没有考虑智库的不同结构、投资人、任务以及其他特征因素。尽管如此，智库的排名依然相当具有吸引力。

The next group of metrics looks at Resources， based on the assumption that more resources allow a think tank to exercise more clout and， hence， achieve more influence.？

下一组评判指标是资源，分组是依据智库资源越多，行动力越强，实现的影响力越大。

6. Quality， diversity and stability of funding. The source of its money may reflect on a think tanks independence， support and connections.

6.智库资金的质量、多样性和稳定性。资金来源可以反映一家智库的独立性、支持力及其人脉关系。

7.Number， experience， skills， reputation of experts， analysts and researchers. Its easy to count heads， but reputation is a subjective quality and harder to measure.

7.智库专家、分析师和研究员的数量、经历、能力和名誉。算清人数很容易，但是名誉具有主观性，很难评定。

8.Quality and extent of networks and partnerships. Influence is not just a question of who you are， but who you know.

8.人际网络和伙伴关系的质量和广度。影响力不仅关系到你是谁，也关系到你认识谁。

The next group of metrics concerns Demand — that is， does anyone actually want to see or hear from a particular think tank？

下一组指标与需求有关——也就是说，是不是有人真正想听取某一家智库的意见？

9.Events. The number of conferences， lectures and workshops， and the number of attendees （both of these are a simple quantifiable measure）. Harder to measure is the quality of the attendees. Are we just filling the room or are we attracting influential opinion leaders， powerful policy makers and top-level experts？

9.活动。会议、讲座和研讨会的数量及与会者的人数（这两者都是简单的量化指标）。这里难以衡量的是与会者的质量。我们只是让会议室坐满？还是吸引了有影响力的意见领袖，有实权的决策者及顶级专家？

10.Digital traffic and engagement. Number of website visitors， page views， time spent on pages， “likes” or followers.

10.数字浏览量和参与度。网站访客量、网页浏览量、在网页停留的时间、爱好者或跟风者。

11.Official access. Number of consultations with officials， as requested by the officials themselves.

11.官方使用量。在官方要求下，接受官员咨询的次数。

12.Publications sold or downloaded from websites. This is not the measure of output， but rather the external “pull” on the publications.

12. 在网上售出或下载的出版物。这并不是智库输出的评估，而是外界在出版物领域对智库的拉力需求。

The final group of metrics considers Policy Impact and Quality of Work. These may be the most important things to measure， but also are among the most difficult to quantify.

最后一组评判指标考虑了智库成果的政策影响力和质量。这些可能是最重要的评估指标，但也是最难量化的指标。

13.Policy recommendations considered or actually adopted. As discussed previously， this is a problem of attribution. A think tank may say it put forward an idea， but if others had the same idea， who gets the credit if a policy is implemented？

13. 予以考虑或被实际采纳的政策建议。正如先前所讨论的，这是一个归因问题。一家智库可以声称它提出了一个想法，但是如果其他人也有同样的想法，那么，在实施政策时，就应认定谁是有功者？

14.Testimonials. Praise， criticism or other assessments of a think tanks work can be collected through interviews with policy makers or recognized experts； this work can be done by external， independent evaluators， reporting to the think tanks board or funders. As well， opinions about the think tank can be collected through formal surveys of the organizations event attendees or subscribers to its newsletters and publications.

14. 证明材料。可以通过与决策者或公认专家的会谈搜集对于智库成果的赞扬、批评或其他评价。这项工作可以由外部独立的评估机构完成，并将其结果向智库的董事会或投资人汇报。同时，也可以从正式调查的被访者，时事通讯和出版物的订户中得到对智库意见的反馈信息。

15.Quality of the think tanks work. This is the most subjective of all metrics， but criteria for quality can be developed and defined， and placed on scales （such as from 1 to 10）. How good were the publications in terms of readability and insight？ How relevant were the projects and outputs to real-world problems and issues？ How effective is the think tank in communicating its messages？ Again， external and independent evaluators can be hired to make these highly subjective judgments.

15.智库成果质量。这是所有评判标准中最主观的评估指标，但是可以形成和界定为质量标准，或界定为指标范围（例如从1至10）。就可读性和洞察力方面而言，智库公开发表成果的质量如何？智库所研究的课题及结果与现实问题的相关度如何？智库在信息传播中的时效性怎样？这些高度主观的判断，可以聘用外部独立的评估机构完成。

In summary， to achieve maximum impact， think tanks should develop an overall strategic plan for the organization， plan their research projects consultatively with policy makers， engage their audiences through channels that are carefully designed to reach the right people using the right method and， finally， measure the outcomes of their work to ensure the goals were met.

总之，为了使影响力最大化，智库应该为机构形成总体战略规划，与决策者协商规划研究课题，经由精心设计的渠道，运用合适的方法，传达给合适的人，以吸引受众。最后，评估智库成果的效率，以确保达成目标。

本文选译自（https：//www.cigionline.org/blogs/tank-treads/

communications-and-impact-metrics-think-tanks）

[责任编辑：肖偲偲]