FRED KUNTZ

[摘 要] 智庫傳播，重在通過對的方法，將對的信息傳給對的人。智庫傳播渠道多種多樣：對于高層領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人，最好的方法是在小型會議上親自向領(lǐng)導(dǎo)呈上研究成果；對于中層官員，可通過會議、研討會、文件及相關(guān)政策簡報等聯(lián)系；對于學(xué)者，可通過精心撰寫的調(diào)查報告和學(xué)術(shù)著作以溝通；而對于普羅大眾，一般通過網(wǎng)絡(luò)和新聞媒介進行傳播。在創(chuàng)造影響力方面，智庫除了組織調(diào)查、進行分析、發(fā)現(xiàn)政策問題或是分享政策理念之外，還可以擴展其角色。對智庫進行評估，可以考慮很多指標(biāo)，其評估結(jié)果產(chǎn)生的寶貴經(jīng)驗有助于智庫改進工作。

[關(guān)鍵詞] 智庫；傳播；影響力；指標(biāo)

[中圖分類號] C932 [文獻標(biāo)識碼] A [文章編號] 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.

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

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多家智庫正在尋找更加有效的方式傳播，以增強其影響力，并探索更好的方式來衡量其影響力。

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）.

我對于智庫交流與影響力評估方法方面的觀點，是基于自己過去3年里與“國際管理創(chuàng)新中心（CIGI）”這一獨立無黨派的全球智庫的合作經(jīng)驗，以及35年來的傳播經(jīng)驗，包括與各報社和新聞網(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.

對于包括智庫在內(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（許多人都能鑒別因為規(guī)劃混亂會導(dǎo)致效果不佳的案例）。使命是對意向的界定；目標(biāo)則是描繪未來的成功藍圖，即要想到達的效果。

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，如果以書面咨詢形式呈現(xiàn)，然后在內(nèi)部共享，它就可以讓團隊的每個人受益，讓每個人都能明白自己的工作對總體規(guī)劃的貢獻。

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)上對智庫的看法是，智庫戰(zhàn)略要求他們進行研究分析，得出政策意見，然后直接或間接地對外傳播。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，智庫面臨的一個挑戰(zhàn)就是評估其影響力，尤其是如何在政策影響力領(lǐng)域評估其戰(zhàn)略規(guī)劃是否成功。這是一個歸因問題，即誰是已實施政策的功臣？一項政策的制定有多方面的原因。國家或政府政策的制定是一個復(fù)雜且反復(fù)的過程。政策理念在經(jīng)過了眾多利益相關(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，往往是多方達成共識的結(jié)果?；谶@些原因，智庫通常不會為自己喝彩，聲稱“該政策是我們的智慧結(jié)晶”。許多案例表明，極罕見有政治領(lǐng)袖因為某一政策而贊許某一家智庫；這些領(lǐng)袖們認為那是他們的政策，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，智庫除了組織調(diào)查、進行分析、發(fā)現(xiàn)政策問題或是分享政策理念之外，還可以擴展其角色。比如智庫能夠召集不同的群體參與大會、研討會及講習(xí)班，從而聯(lián)系群眾，方便對話。作為會議召集者，智庫是決策者、非政府組織、學(xué)術(shù)界、商界領(lǐng)袖和媒體等不同團體跨界交流的橋梁。這樣，智庫創(chuàng)造了一種“第二軌跡”的影響力——一種如催化劑般協(xié)調(diào)推動的作用，其間，智庫也很難評估其自身的影響力。通過培訓(xùn)項目、教育和宣傳推廣，智庫也可以在教育領(lǐng)域發(fā)揮其作用，因為這有助于培養(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.

智庫傳播，重在通過對的方法，將對的信息，傳給對的人。智庫傳播渠道多種多樣——因為不同的渠道針對特定的受眾可能會更有效。比如，對高層領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人而言，學(xué)術(shù)研究論文式的溝通方式是無效的，因為高層領(lǐng)導(dǎo)們都很忙，幾乎沒閱讀時間。最好的方法是在小型會議上親自向領(lǐng)導(dǎo)呈上研究成果，但是這種方法取決于智庫能否通過其卓越有效的人脈關(guān)系接觸到領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者。同時，中層官員可以通過多種渠道聯(lián)系，比如會議、研討會、文件和政策簡報（研究報告約5000到10000字，或更多；而政策簡報應(yīng)簡短，用1000至1500字將主要觀點提煉成幾條簡潔的結(jié)論或政策建議）。對于學(xué)者，更容易通過他們精心撰寫的調(diào)查報告或?qū)W術(shù)著作與領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人溝通。而對于普羅大眾，最好的方法是通過網(wǎng)絡(luò)和新聞媒介進行傳播。倘若想借助新聞媒介的宣傳，智庫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，請他們以新聞形式撰寫和發(fā)布新聞稿。至于其他傳播渠道包括社交媒體，時事通訊（包括電子郵件通訊）和年度報告等等——每種方式都有特定的受眾。好的傳播計劃會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.

智庫的“影響力周期”分為三個階段：第一個階段是規(guī)劃。智庫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；研究者會通過設(shè)計來討論這些課題，這些設(shè)計包括資源、預(yù)算、員工與時間表的分配。第二個階段是執(zhí)行。智庫會對調(diào)查項目進行深入的研究分析，包括其歷史背景和政策選擇；如果有必要，智庫會召開研討會及公開或秘密的會議；還可以通過出版物、網(wǎng)站和社交媒體交流他們的研究成果。最后一個階段當(dāng)然是評估。

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.

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

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.

對智庫進行評估，可以考慮到很多指標(biāo)。下面羅列的是不同領(lǐng)域的專家就智庫提出的15條可行的評判標(biāo)準(zhǔn)——可惜的是，可供參考的較實用的指標(biāo)卻最難用具體數(shù)字衡量。這些指標(biāo)可以分組，前5個指標(biāo)為曝光度組，分組依據(jù)是智庫越有影響力，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。媒體對智庫成果的引用，例如報紙和新聞網(wǎng)站。可以招募第三方服務(wù)商來評估引用，也可以讓智庫員工自己用互聯(lián)網(wǎng)引擎搜索。在線搜索并不完美，因為引擎可能無法捕捉到出現(xiàn)在傳統(tǒng)紙質(zhì)媒體、電視或者廣播中的參考文獻，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。這是對智庫出版物的一個嚴(yán)格的量化評估，并不對出版物內(nèi)容質(zhì)量的優(yōu)劣進行評估。

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)期刊對智庫成果的引用。

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

4.政府引用。該引用包括政府機關(guān)會議或官方會議記錄對智庫成果的引用。

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.智庫評級。在年度排行中，比如由美國賓夕法尼亞大學(xué)發(fā)布的排行榜，智庫排名情況如何？一些評論家認為，這些排名不過是基于個人主觀判斷的人氣投票，所采用的方法并沒有考慮智庫的不同結(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.？

下一組評判指標(biāo)是資源，分組是依據(jù)智庫資源越多，行動力越強，實現(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.智庫資金的質(zhì)量、多樣性和穩(wěn)定性。資金來源可以反映一家智庫的獨立性、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.智庫專家、分析師和研究員的數(shù)量、經(jīng)歷、能力和名譽。算清人數(shù)很容易，但是名譽具有主觀性，很難評定。

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，也關(guān)系到你認識誰。

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，是不是有人真正想聽取某一家智庫的意見？

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。會議、講座和研討會的數(shù)量及與會者的人數(shù)（這兩者都是簡單的量化指標(biāo)）。這里難以衡量的是與會者的質(zhì)量。我們只是讓會議室坐滿？還是吸引了有影響力的意見領(lǐng)袖，有實權(quán)的決策者及頂級專家？

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)頁瀏覽量、在網(wǎng)頁停留的時間、愛好者或跟風(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。這并不是智庫輸出的評估，而是外界在出版物領(lǐng)域?qū)χ菐斓睦π枨蟆?/p>

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.

最后一組評判指標(biāo)考慮了智庫成果的政策影響力和質(zhì)量。這些可能是最重要的評估指標(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. 予以考慮或被實際采納的政策建議。正如先前所討論的，這是一個歸因問題。一家智庫可以聲稱它提出了一個想法，但是如果其他人也有同樣的想法，那么，在實施政策時，就應(yīng)認定誰是有功者？

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^與決策者或公認專家的會談搜集對于智庫成果的贊揚、批評或其他評價。這項工作可以由外部獨立的評估機構(gòu)完成，并將其結(jié)果向智庫的董事會或投資人匯報。同時，也可以從正式調(diào)查的被訪者，時事通訊和出版物的訂戶中得到對智庫意見的反饋信息。

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.智庫成果質(zhì)量。這是所有評判標(biāo)準(zhǔn)中最主觀的評估指標(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，智庫公開發(fā)表成果的質(zhì)量如何？智庫所研究的課題及結(jié)果與現(xiàn)實問題的相關(guān)度如何？智庫在信息傳播中的時效性怎樣？這些高度主觀的判斷，可以聘用外部獨立的評估機構(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，智庫應(yīng)該為機構(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)計的渠道，運用合適的方法，傳達給合適的人，以吸引受眾。最后，評估智庫成果的效率，以確保達成目標(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]