FRED KUNTZ

[摘 要] 智庫(kù)傳播，重在通過(guò)對(duì)的方法，將對(duì)的信息傳給對(duì)的人。智庫(kù)傳播渠道多種多樣：對(duì)于高層領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人，最好的方法是在小型會(huì)議上親自向領(lǐng)導(dǎo)呈上研究成果；對(duì)于中層官員，可通過(guò)會(huì)議、研討會(huì)、文件及相關(guān)政策簡(jiǎn)報(bào)等聯(lián)系；對(duì)于學(xué)者，可通過(guò)精心撰寫(xiě)的調(diào)查報(bào)告和學(xué)術(shù)著作以溝通；而對(duì)于普羅大眾，一般通過(guò)網(wǎng)絡(luò)和新聞媒介進(jìn)行傳播。在創(chuàng)造影響力方面，智庫(kù)除了組織調(diào)查、進(jìn)行分析、發(fā)現(xiàn)政策問(wèn)題或是分享政策理念之外，還可以擴(kuò)展其角色。對(duì)智庫(kù)進(jìn)行評(píng)估，可以考慮很多指標(biāo)，其評(píng)估結(jié)果產(chǎn)生的寶貴經(jīng)驗(yàn)有助于智庫(kù)改進(jìn)工作。

[關(guān)鍵詞] 智庫(kù)；傳播；影響力；指標(biāo)

[中圖分類號(hào)] C932 [文獻(xiàn)標(biāo)識(shí)碼] A [文章編號(hào)] 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.

本博客信息來(lái)源于2013年6月17-18日，中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)院在北京舉辦的“智庫(kù)：面對(duì)變化中的世界”研討會(huì)上的一次主題演講。

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多家智庫(kù)正在尋找更加有效的方式傳播，以增強(qiáng)其影響力，并探索更好的方式來(lái)衡量其影響力。

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）.

我對(duì)于智庫(kù)交流與影響力評(píng)估方法方面的觀點(diǎn)，是基于自己過(guò)去3年里與“國(guó)際管理創(chuàng)新中心（CIGI）”這一獨(dú)立無(wú)黨派的全球智庫(kù)的合作經(jīng)驗(yàn)，以及35年來(lái)的傳播經(jīng)驗(yàn)，包括與各報(bào)社和新聞網(wǎng)站的溝通經(jīng)歷。

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.

對(duì)于包括智庫(kù)在內(nèi)的任何組織而言，良好的交流始于總體戰(zhàn)略規(guī)劃的制定。這似乎是顯而易見(jiàn)的。但是擁有清晰使命和目標(biāo)的企業(yè)的確更可能獲得成功（許多人都能鑒別因?yàn)橐?guī)劃混亂會(huì)導(dǎo)致效果不佳的案例）。使命是對(duì)意向的界定；目標(biāo)則是描繪未來(lái)的成功藍(lán)圖，即要想到達(dá)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.

要想實(shí)現(xiàn)這些目標(biāo)，制定戰(zhàn)術(shù)非常有必要。一份將這些因素合理組合的戰(zhàn)略，如果以書(shū)面咨詢形式呈現(xiàn)，然后在內(nèi)部共享，它就可以讓團(tuán)隊(duì)的每個(gè)人受益，讓每個(gè)人都能明白自己的工作對(duì)總體規(guī)劃的貢獻(xiàn)。

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.

傳統(tǒng)上對(duì)智庫(kù)的看法是，智庫(kù)戰(zhàn)略要求他們進(jìn)行研究分析，得出政策意見(jiàn)，然后直接或間接地對(duì)外傳播。為此，他們可以選擇與權(quán)威的政策制定者直接交流，也可以借助媒體、學(xué)者和公民等政策影響者間接傳播。

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，智庫(kù)面臨的一個(gè)挑戰(zhàn)就是評(píng)估其影響力，尤其是如何在政策影響力領(lǐng)域評(píng)估其戰(zhàn)略規(guī)劃是否成功。這是一個(gè)歸因問(wèn)題，即誰(shuí)是已實(shí)施政策的功臣？一項(xiàng)政策的制定有多方面的原因。國(guó)家或政府政策的制定是一個(gè)復(fù)雜且反復(fù)的過(guò)程。政策理念在經(jīng)過(guò)了眾多利益相關(guān)者的廣泛商討后被調(diào)研、分析、討論與完善。政策最終通過(guò)，往往是多方達(dá)成共識(shí)的結(jié)果。基于這些原因，智庫(kù)通常不會(huì)為自己喝彩，聲稱“該政策是我們的智慧結(jié)晶”。許多案例表明，極罕見(jiàn)有政治領(lǐng)袖因?yàn)槟骋徽叨澰S某一家智庫(kù)；這些領(lǐng)袖們認(rèn)為那是他們的政策，解釋權(quán)在他們手中。

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.

在創(chuàng)造影響力方面，智庫(kù)除了組織調(diào)查、進(jìn)行分析、發(fā)現(xiàn)政策問(wèn)題或是分享政策理念之外，還可以擴(kuò)展其角色。比如智庫(kù)能夠召集不同的群體參與大會(huì)、研討會(huì)及講習(xí)班，從而聯(lián)系群眾，方便對(duì)話。作為會(huì)議召集者，智庫(kù)是決策者、非政府組織、學(xué)術(shù)界、商界領(lǐng)袖和媒體等不同團(tuán)體跨界交流的橋梁。這樣，智庫(kù)創(chuàng)造了一種“第二軌跡”的影響力——一種如催化劑般協(xié)調(diào)推動(dòng)的作用，其間，智庫(kù)也很難評(píng)估其自身的影響力。通過(guò)培訓(xùn)項(xiàng)目、教育和宣傳推廣，智庫(kù)也可以在教育領(lǐng)域發(fā)揮其作用，因?yàn)檫@有助于培養(yǎng)下一代外交家、官員和政治領(lǐng)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.

智庫(kù)傳播，重在通過(guò)對(duì)的方法，將對(duì)的信息，傳給對(duì)的人。智庫(kù)傳播渠道多種多樣——因?yàn)椴煌那泪槍?duì)特定的受眾可能會(huì)更有效。比如，對(duì)高層領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人而言，學(xué)術(shù)研究論文式的溝通方式是無(wú)效的，因?yàn)楦邔宇I(lǐng)導(dǎo)們都很忙，幾乎沒(méi)閱讀時(shí)間。最好的方法是在小型會(huì)議上親自向領(lǐng)導(dǎo)呈上研究成果，但是這種方法取決于智庫(kù)能否通過(guò)其卓越有效的人脈關(guān)系接觸到領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者。同時(shí)，中層官員可以通過(guò)多種渠道聯(lián)系，比如會(huì)議、研討會(huì)、文件和政策簡(jiǎn)報(bào)（研究報(bào)告約5000到10000字，或更多；而政策簡(jiǎn)報(bào)應(yīng)簡(jiǎn)短，用1000至1500字將主要觀點(diǎn)提煉成幾條簡(jiǎn)潔的結(jié)論或政策建議）。對(duì)于學(xué)者，更容易通過(guò)他們精心撰寫(xiě)的調(diào)查報(bào)告或?qū)W術(shù)著作與領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人溝通。而對(duì)于普羅大眾，最好的方法是通過(guò)網(wǎng)絡(luò)和新聞媒介進(jìn)行傳播。倘若想借助新聞媒介的宣傳，智庫(kù)可聘用嫻熟的通訊員：經(jīng)常跟媒體打交道，還可以定期接觸媒體、與媒體搞好關(guān)系，請(qǐng)他們以新聞形式撰寫(xiě)和發(fā)布新聞稿。至于其他傳播渠道包括社交媒體，時(shí)事通訊（包括電子郵件通訊）和年度報(bào)告等等——每種方式都有特定的受眾。好的傳播計(jì)劃會(huì)綜合使用上述所有渠道，以發(fā)揮最大的影響力。

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.

智庫(kù)的“影響力周期”分為三個(gè)階段：第一個(gè)階段是規(guī)劃。智庫(kù)的研究員與決策者協(xié)商，以便更好地了解決策者面臨的挑戰(zhàn)與難題；研究者會(huì)通過(guò)設(shè)計(jì)來(lái)討論這些課題，這些設(shè)計(jì)包括資源、預(yù)算、員工與時(shí)間表的分配。第二個(gè)階段是執(zhí)行。智庫(kù)會(huì)對(duì)調(diào)查項(xiàng)目進(jìn)行深入的研究分析，包括其歷史背景和政策選擇；如果有必要，智庫(kù)會(huì)召開(kāi)研討會(huì)及公開(kāi)或秘密的會(huì)議；還可以通過(guò)出版物、網(wǎng)站和社交媒體交流他們的研究成果。最后一個(gè)階段當(dāng)然是評(píng)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.

智庫(kù)可以通過(guò)出版物發(fā)行量、媒體提及量、網(wǎng)站流量和社會(huì)媒體點(diǎn)擊量追蹤影響力輸出的數(shù)量指標(biāo)，也可以評(píng)估影響力輸出的質(zhì)量指標(biāo)（盡管這是一個(gè)主觀判斷），甚至可以嘗試評(píng)估智庫(kù)對(duì)公眾政策的實(shí)際影響力（正如前文所提及，不過(guò)這樣便增加了評(píng)估難度）。智庫(kù)可以向利益相關(guān)者匯報(bào)這些評(píng)估結(jié)果，比如智庫(kù)的投資人。第三階段是最容易忽略的，但是評(píng)估結(jié)果產(chǎn)生的寶貴經(jīng)驗(yàn)卻有助于智庫(kù)改進(jìn)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.

對(duì)智庫(kù)進(jìn)行評(píng)估，可以考慮到很多指標(biāo)。下面羅列的是不同領(lǐng)域的專家就智庫(kù)提出的15條可行的評(píng)判標(biāo)準(zhǔn)——可惜的是，可供參考的較實(shí)用的指標(biāo)卻最難用具體數(shù)字衡量。這些指標(biāo)可以分組，前5個(gè)指標(biāo)為曝光度組，分組依據(jù)是智庫(kù)越有影響力，其在公眾視野中的曝光度越高。

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.媒體提及率。媒體對(duì)智庫(kù)成果的引用，例如報(bào)紙和新聞網(wǎng)站。可以招募第三方服務(wù)商來(lái)評(píng)估引用，也可以讓智庫(kù)員工自己用互聯(lián)網(wǎng)引擎搜索。在線搜索并不完美，因?yàn)橐婵赡軣o(wú)法捕捉到出現(xiàn)在傳統(tǒng)紙質(zhì)媒體、電視或者廣播中的參考文獻(xiàn)，并且忽略了那些躲避網(wǎng)絡(luò)支付系統(tǒng)和安全措施的網(wǎng)頁(yè)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.出版物的數(shù)量和類型。這是對(duì)智庫(kù)出版物的一個(gè)嚴(yán)格的量化評(píng)估，并不對(duì)出版物內(nèi)容質(zhì)量的優(yōu)劣進(jìn)行評(píng)估。

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

3.學(xué)術(shù)引文。這包括學(xué)術(shù)期刊對(duì)智庫(kù)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。該引用包括政府機(jī)關(guān)會(huì)議或官方會(huì)議記錄對(duì)智庫(kù)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.智庫(kù)評(píng)級(jí)。在年度排行中，比如由美國(guó)賓夕法尼亞大學(xué)發(fā)布的排行榜，智庫(kù)排名情況如何？一些評(píng)論家認(rèn)為，這些排名不過(guò)是基于個(gè)人主觀判斷的人氣投票，所采用的方法并沒(méi)有考慮智庫(kù)的不同結(jié)構(gòu)、投資人、任務(wù)以及其他特征因素。盡管如此，智庫(kù)的排名依然相當(dāng)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.？

下一組評(píng)判指標(biāo)是資源，分組是依據(jù)智庫(kù)資源越多，行動(dòng)力越強(qiáng)，實(shí)現(xiàn)的影響力越大。

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

6.智庫(kù)資金的質(zhì)量、多樣性和穩(wěn)定性。資金來(lái)源可以反映一家智庫(kù)的獨(dú)立性、支持力及其人脈關(guān)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.智庫(kù)專家、分析師和研究員的數(shù)量、經(jīng)歷、能力和名譽(yù)。算清人數(shù)很容易，但是名譽(yù)具有主觀性，很難評(píng)定。

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

8.人際網(wǎng)絡(luò)和伙伴關(guān)系的質(zhì)量和廣度。影響力不僅關(guān)系到你是誰(shuí)，也關(guān)系到你認(rèn)識(shí)誰(shuí)。

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

下一組指標(biāo)與需求有關(guān)——也就是說(shuō)，是不是有人真正想聽(tīng)取某一家智庫(kù)的意見(jiàn)？

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.活動(dòng)。會(huì)議、講座和研討會(huì)的數(shù)量及與會(huì)者的人數(shù)（這兩者都是簡(jiǎn)單的量化指標(biāo)）。這里難以衡量的是與會(huì)者的質(zhì)量。我們只是讓會(huì)議室坐滿？還是吸引了有影響力的意見(jiàn)領(lǐng)袖，有實(shí)權(quán)的決策者及頂級(jí)專家？

10.Digital traffic and engagement. Number of website visitors， page views， time spent on pages， “l(fā)ikes” or followers.

10.數(shù)字瀏覽量和參與度。網(wǎng)站訪客量、網(wǎng)頁(yè)瀏覽量、在網(wǎng)頁(yè)停留的時(shí)間、愛(ài)好者或跟風(fēng)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，接受官員咨詢的次數(shù)。

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

12. 在網(wǎng)上售出或下載的出版物。這并不是智庫(kù)輸出的評(píng)估，而是外界在出版物領(lǐng)域?qū)χ菐?kù)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.

最后一組評(píng)判指標(biāo)考慮了智庫(kù)成果的政策影響力和質(zhì)量。這些可能是最重要的評(píng)估指標(biāo)，但也是最難量化的指標(biāo)。

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. 予以考慮或被實(shí)際采納的政策建議。正如先前所討論的，這是一個(gè)歸因問(wèn)題。一家智庫(kù)可以聲稱它提出了一個(gè)想法，但是如果其他人也有同樣的想法，那么，在實(shí)施政策時(shí)，就應(yīng)認(rèn)定誰(shuí)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. 證明材料?？梢酝ㄟ^(guò)與決策者或公認(rèn)專家的會(huì)談搜集對(duì)于智庫(kù)成果的贊揚(yáng)、批評(píng)或其他評(píng)價(jià)。這項(xiàng)工作可以由外部獨(dú)立的評(píng)估機(jī)構(gòu)完成，并將其結(jié)果向智庫(kù)的董事會(huì)或投資人匯報(bào)。同時(shí)，也可以從正式調(diào)查的被訪者，時(shí)事通訊和出版物的訂戶中得到對(duì)智庫(kù)意見(jiàn)的反饋信息。

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.智庫(kù)成果質(zhì)量。這是所有評(píng)判標(biāo)準(zhǔn)中最主觀的評(píng)估指標(biāo)，但是可以形成和界定為質(zhì)量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，或界定為指標(biāo)范圍（例如從1至10）。就可讀性和洞察力方面而言，智庫(kù)公開(kāi)發(fā)表成果的質(zhì)量如何？智庫(kù)所研究的課題及結(jié)果與現(xiàn)實(shí)問(wèn)題的相關(guān)度如何？智庫(kù)在信息傳播中的時(shí)效性怎樣？這些高度主觀的判斷，可以聘用外部獨(dú)立的評(píng)估機(jī)構(gòu)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.

總之，為了使影響力最大化，智庫(kù)應(yīng)該為機(jī)構(gòu)形成總體戰(zhàn)略規(guī)劃，與決策者協(xié)商規(guī)劃研究課題，經(jīng)由精心設(shè)計(jì)的渠道，運(yùn)用合適的方法，傳達(dá)給合適的人，以吸引受眾。最后，評(píng)估智庫(kù)成果的效率，以確保達(dá)成目標(biāo)。

本文選譯自（https：//www.cigionline.org/blogs/tank-treads/

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

[責(zé)任編輯：肖偲偲]