緒論:「決策諮詢」成為解決「官員」處理複雜公共問題的良方，智庫組織作為決策諮詢的代表性組織，在不同國家迅速發展。中國智庫受政府「重視」卻被學者「忽視」，地方智庫的研究少之又少，但智庫組織已成為地方體育政策文本草擬的主力軍。研究目的:以福建省三個地方體育智庫組織所承擔的三個政策文本草擬的過程為例，運用政策制定過程、知識運用和雙群體理論，探究體育政策草擬的及本進程為何?智庫在地方體育政策草擬過程如何與政府官員互動?政府官員選擇智庫的考量因素為何?研究方法:運用多重個案研究方法，並對智庫組織成員、政府官員、專家學者等進行訪談，收集官方文件等作為資料來源。研究結論：1、地方體育政策不同政策性質，政策基本進程不同，法律條文則經過政策形成動因、政策方案設計、草擬單位內部醞釀、立法審議和徵詢意見、政策出臺等五個階段；部分評估政策方案則經過形成動因、評估指標與建構、申報考評、最終公示階段。地方體育政策制定受制於國家的部署要求和相關指令，同時地方官員存在利他和爭先動機、考慮地方體育發展需要、政府內部政策企業家的呼籲。地方體育領域行政官員作為主要發起人，發起政策議題。2、政府官員選擇智庫組織考量因素包括政府官員因素、智庫專家的因素和制度約束。3、地方體育政策制定個過程中不同階段互動關係不同，不同階段互動內容不同。

Introduction: "Decision-making consultation" has become a good way for "officials" to deal with complex public issues. As a representative organization of decision-making consultation, think tanks are developing rapidly in different countries. Chinese think tanks are "valued" by the government but "ignored" by scholars, and local think tanks lack relevant research but think tanks have become the main force in drafting local sports policy texts. Purpose: This study took the process of drafting different policy texts undertaken by three sports think tanks in Fujian Province as an example. This study used the policy-making process, knowledge application, and dual-group theory to explore what were the composition of local sports think tanks. What was the role of think tanks in drafting of local sports policies? How did think tanks influence the local sports policy drafting process? What factors did government officials consider when choosing think tanks? Methods: This study used multiple case study approach, and conducted individual interviews with think tank members, government officials, experts, and scholars. The researcher also collected official documents as data sources. Conclusion: 1. The basic process of local sports policies was different under different policy natures. Legal provisions included five phases, the policy formation motive, policy program design, internal brewing of drafting unit, legislative review, and consultation. Some assessment policy options have gone through the stages of motivation, assessment indicators and construction, reporting, and assessment, and final public announcement. The development of local sports policies was subject to national deployment requirements and related directives. There was also altruism and competition for motivation from local officials, consideration of local sports development needs, and appeals from policy entrepreneurs within the government. Local sports administrators acted as the main initiators of policy issues. 2. Considerations for government officials in choosing a think tank included government officials' factors, think tank experts' factors and institutional constraints. 3. In the progress of local sports policy formulation, the interactive relationship was different at different stages, and the interactive content was different at different stages.

丁煌 (1997)。美國的思想庫及其在政府決策中的作用。國際技術經濟研究學報，(3)，31-37。
丁煌 (1997)。美國的思想庫及其在政府決策中的作用。國際技術經濟研究學報，(3)，31-37。
人民日報 (1986)。萬裡:決策民主化和科學化是政治體制改革的一個重要課題。取自http://www.reformdata.org/1986/0731/8266.shtml
上官婷 (2021)。基於多源流模型的改革開放以來中國體育產業政策變遷研究 [未出版碩士學位論文]。山西財經大學。
中國人民網(2001)。第四章地方性法規、自治條例和單行條例http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/npc/flsyywd/xianfa/2001-08/01/content_140409.htm
王子朴、原玉傑、詹新寰 (2008)。我國體育產業政策發展歷程及其特點。上海體育學院學報，32(2)，15-19。
王健 (2015)。論中國智庫發展的現狀，問題及改革重點。新疆師範大學學報:哲學社會科學版，(4)，29-34。
王莉、吳文清 (2013)。地方高校智庫建設的邏輯分析——基於地方政府治理模式創新的探討。清華大學教育研究，(6)，109-114。
王雪麗、付群、鄭成雯 (2019)。2010—2019年中國體育消費政策落實:問題與對策。體育科學，39(10)，40-55。
王雅君 (2015)。地方智庫諮政與發展問題研究——以杭州市為例。中共福建省委黨校學報，(10)，103-108。
王裕雄、靳厚忠 (2017)。中國體育產業新政效果如何--來自資本市場的證據。北京體育大學學報，40(1)，16-21。
王曉民、蔡晨風 (2001)。美國研究機構及其取得成功的原因。北京大學學報，(1)，87 -95。
朱旭峰 (2002)。美國思想庫對社會思潮的影響。現代國際關係，(8)，42-46。
朱旭峰 (2006)。中國政策精英群體的社會資本:基於結構主義視角的分析。社會學研究，4，86-116。
朱旭峰 (2007)。「思想庫」研究:西方研究綜述。國外社會科學，(1)，60-69。
朱旭峰 (2009)。中國思想庫:政策過程中影響力研究。北京:清華大學出版社。
朱旭峰 (2011)。中國社會政策變遷中的專家參與模式研究。社會學研究，2(4)。
朱旭峰 (2012)。政策變遷中的專家參與。北京:中國人民大學出版社。
朱旭峰 (2014)。構建中國特色新型智庫研究的理論框架。中國行政管理，5，29-33。
朱旭峰、田君 (2008)。知識與中國公共政策的議程設置: 一個實證研究。中國行政管理，6 (7)。
朱偉 (2014)。民意、知識、權力:政策制定過程中公眾、專家與政府的互動模式。南京:南京大學出版社。
朱啟瑩、黃海燕 (2016)。體育產業政策對體育類上市公司資本市場價值的短期影響。上海體育學院學報，40(6)，1-7。
余守文、肖樂樂 (2018)。政策工具視角下中國體育產業政策文本量化分析——以國務院46號文為例。體育學刊，25(4)，21-27。
吳香芝、張林 (2012)。我國體育服務產業政策基本特徵分析與研究。體育與科學，(5)，52-55。
吳香芝、張林 (2012)。我國體育服務產業政策變遷。北京體育大學學報，35(10)，24-28。
李瑞、李北偉、季忠洋 (2020)。地方智庫協同創新的要素協同，知識服務創新與價值共創———基於服務主導邏輯的視角。情報雜誌，39(1)，91-99。
汪廷炯 (1997)。論思想庫。中國軟科學，2(5)。
邢尊明 (2016)。我國地方政府體育產業政策行為研究--基於政策擴散理論的省(級)際政策實踐調查與實證分析。體育科學，36(1)，27-37。
周紅妹、林向陽 (2016)。地方政府推進體育產業發展的政策工具研究。天津體育學院學報，31(5)，375-379。
周榮 (2020)。我國學校體育場館對外開放政策的變遷研究 [未出版碩士論文]。西南大學。
於豐園、於群英 (2017)。高校智庫參與地方政府決策的路徑研究——基於知識管理的視角。情報雜誌，36 (6)，50-54。
易劍東、任慧濤 (2015)。中國體育智庫建設研究。武漢體育學院學報，49(7)，5-13。
易劍東、袁春梅 (2013)。中國體育產業政策執行效力評價——基於模糊綜合評價方法的分析。北京體育大學學報，(12)，6-10。
林天佑、虞志長、張志毓、餘瑞陽、邱春堂、楊士賢 (1996)。教育政策形成及制定過程之分析。初等教育學刊。
林向陽、林宸彧 (2020)。福建省體育產業政策執行效果、阻滯機制與治理策略。嘉應學院學報。
金芳 (2010)。西方學者論智庫。上海社會科學院出版社。
侯軍毅、王薈、王華倬 (2022)。我國青少年體育政策變遷研究 (1949—2021)——基於多源流理論視角。天津體育學院學報，(2)，145-151、159。
姜豔華、李兆友 (2019)。多源流理論在我國公共政策研究中的應用述論。江蘇社會科學，1。
省體科所 (2022)。省體科所和省體育科學學會協助圓滿完成2019—2021年第一屆福
建省全民運動健身 模範縣（市、區）創建評估工作。取自
http://tyj.fujian.gov.cn/zwgk/xwzx/sxdt/202201/t20220119_5820794.htm
科研所 (2011)。體育科學研究所主要職能。取自 https://www.sport.gov.cn/kys/n5534/c657752/content.html
胡平仁 (2002)。在權利與權力之間—公共政策學新論。湖南:人民出版社。
貟傑 (2001)。中國公共政策研究的現狀分析。政治學研究，(1)，26-34。
徐曉虎 (2014)。地方智庫的構成要素和競爭力研究 [未出版博士論文]。南京航空航太大學。
徐曉虎、陳圻 (2012)。全球金融危機與中國智庫發展。學術論壇，35(7)，170-173。
徐曉虎、陳圻 (2012a)。地方智庫運行機制研究——基於地市級智庫的實證研究。南京大學學報:哲學、人文科學、社會科學，49(5)，21-28。
高曉峰 (2019)。我國學校體育政策變遷與啟示。體育文化導刊，(8)，30-37。
國家體育總局群體司（2018）。體育總局辦公廳《關於報送全民運動健身模範市和全民運動健身模範縣（市、區）創建工作材料的通知》。取自https://www.sport.gov.cn/qts/n4986/c868428/content.html
張文鵬、段莉、王濤 (2021)。地方政府體育治理聚焦與推進的注意力研究——基於31個省 (區、市)政府工作報告的文本分析。中國體育科技，(07)，78-84。 doi:10.16470/j.csst.2020080.
張朋、阿英嘎 (2018)。基於多源流模型對我國學校體育立法的預演與構想。首都體育學院學報，(2)，157-159、165。doi:10.14036/j.cnki.cn11-4513.2018.02.014.
張健、姚慧玲 (2022)。體育行政權力清單制度的運行狀況與規範策略——以31個省級體育行政部門的權力清單為樣本。上海體育學院學報，46(2)，88-96。DOI:10.16099/j.sus.2021.09.06.0005.
張國慶 (2004)。公共政策分析。復旦大學出版社。
張鋒、閻智力 (2018)。中國高校體育智庫發展的實然之思與應然之策。體育學刊，3。
張鋒、閻智力 (2019)。擁抱大數據:大數據時代中國高端體育智庫建設研究。武漢體育學院學報，53(8)，10-16。
陳曉峰 (2018)。我國體育產業政策環境分析——基於國家治理的視閾。中國體育科技，54 (2)，3-14。
陳曉峰 (2019)。國家治理視閾下體育產業政策的價值分析。成都體育學院學報，(4)， 23-28。
陸海林 (2020)。多源流理論視域下我國體育政策議程創建研究——基於《體育強國建設綱要》的分析。山東體育學院學報，(4)，39-46。doi:10.14104/j.cnki.1006-2076.2020.04.007
傅瑋（2010）。國家體育總局群體司司長盛志國：“浙江群眾體育創強經驗”值得推廣。取自https://www.sport.gov.cn/n14471/n14482/n14519/c686663/content.html
傅廣宛、楊寶強 (2016)。嵌入理論視角下智庫行政化現象研究。理論與改革，(1)，94-97。
新華社 (2015)。中共中央辦公廳、國務院辦公廳印發《關於加強中國特色新型智庫建設的意見。取自http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2015-01/20/content_2807126.htm
葉林、李寅 (2020)。我國幼兒體育教育政策的多源流分析:政策之窗的開啟與推動。學術研究，(11)，61-67。
葉金育 (2016)。體育產業發展中的財稅政策工具:選擇，組合與應用。體育科學，36(6)，73-83。
葉金育 (2020)。體育產業稅收優惠:規範設計與體系構造。上海體育學院學報，44(8), 47-63。
趙炬明 (2014)。為決策者服務——如何在高等教育領域做政策諮詢。高等工程教育研究，2，61-65。
劉盼盼 (2016)。新型體育智庫建設中的體育科學研究工作。北京體育大學學報，(10)，12-17。
劉盼盼 (2016a)。中國特色新型體育智庫的內涵及運行機制。體育學刊，(2)，22-25。
劉純獻、劉盼盼、劉紅偉 (2017)。中國體育智庫建設:問題與對策。河南師範大學學報: 哲學社會科學版，44(2)，153-156。
劉慶齡、曾立 (2022)。中國高校新型智庫管理基本理論及其實踐策略探討———基於
歷史經驗和發展現狀的實證分析。科技管理研究，42(5)，104－111。
蔡朋龍 (2020)。地方政府對國家體育產業政策再制定的協同力評價研究——基於11個省、自治區、直轄市的實證分析。天津體育學院學報，(1)，70-79。 doi:10.13297/j.cnki.issn1005-0000.2020.01.01
鄭志強 (2010)。中國體育產業政策研究綜述。體育學刊，17(06)，14-20。
鄭志強 (2014)。中國地方體育產業政策比較研究。北京體育大學學報，(10)，13-17。
薑同仁 (2016)。新常態下中國體育產業政策調整研究。體育科學，36(4)，33-41。
薛瀾 (1996)。在美國公共政策制訂過程中的思想庫。國際經濟評論，(6)，48-52。
薛瀾 (2014)。智庫熱的冷思:破解中國特色智庫發展之道。中國行政管理，5，6-10。
薛瀾、朱旭峰 (2006)。「中國思想庫」: 涵義，分類與研究展望。科學學研究，24(3)，321-327。
薛瀾、朱旭峰 (2009)。中國思想庫的社會職能——以政策過程為中心的改革之路。管理世界，(4)，55-65。
叢湖平、鄭芳、童瑩娟、陸亨伯、羅建英、王喬君、潘雯雯 (2013)。我國體育產業政策研究。體育科學，33(9)，3-13。
鐘裕民、曹國平 (2017)。地方智庫有效協同:理論框架與實現機制——以溫州地方智庫為例。理論與改革，(2)，28-35。
體育總局 (2016)。劉鵬局長兩會「部長通道」受訪內容.中央政府門戶網。取自http://www.gov.cn/guowuyuan/vom/2016-03/18/content_5055235.htm
Abelson, D. E. (2000). Do think tanks matter? Opportunities, constraints and incentives for think tanks in Canada and the United States. Global Society, 14(2), 213-236.
Abelson, D. E. (2009). What were they thinking? Think tanks, the Bush presidency and US
foreign policy. In New directions in US foreign policy (pp. 106-119). Routledge.
Abelson, D. E. (2014). Old world, new world: the evolution and influence of foreign affairs think-tanks. International Affairs, 90(1), 125-142.
Ahmad, M. (2008). US think tanks and the politics of expertise: role, value & impact. The Political Quarterly, 79(4), 529-555.
Altman, J. A., & Petkus, E. (1994). Toward a stakeholder-based policy process: an application of the social marketing perspective to environmental policy development. Policy Sciences, 27(1), 37-51.
Anderson, J. E. (2020). Public policymaking: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Baumgartner, F. R., & Leech, B. L. (1999). Basic Interests: The Importance of Groups in Politics and in Political Science. Journal of Politics, 61, 844-844.
Booth, T. (1990). Researching policy research: Issues of utilization in decision making. Knowledge, 12(1), 80-100.
Bowen, G. A. (2009), Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Braml, J. (2006). US and German think tanks in comparative perspective. German Policy Studies, 3(2), 222.
Breedveld, K., Elling, A., Hoekman, R. H. A., & Schaars, D. (2016). Maatschappelijke betekenissen van sport: wetenschappelijke onderbouwing en weerslag in lokaal beleid.
Brugha, R., & Varvasovszky, Z. (2000). Stakeholder analysis: a review. Health policy & planning, 15(3), 239-246.
Campbell, J. L. (1998). Institutional Analysis & the Role of Ideas in Political Economy. Theory and Society, 27(3), 377–409. http://www.jstor.org/stable/657900
Campbell, J. L. (2002). Ideas, politics, and public policy. Annual review of sociology, 28(1), 21-38.
Campbell, J. L., & Pedersen, O. K. (2011). Knowledge regimes and comparative political economy. Ideas and politics in social science research, 167, 172-190.
Campbell, J. L., & Pedersen, O. K. (2014). The national origins of policy ideas. In The National Origins of Policy Ideas. US: Princeton University Press.
Caplan, N. (1977). A minimal set of conditions necessary for the utilization of social science knowledge in policy formulation at the national level. Using social research in public policy making, 183-198.
Caplan, N. (1979). The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization. American behavioral scientist, 22(3), 459-470.
Caplan, N., Morrison, A., & Stambaugh, R. J. (1975). The Use of Social Science Knowledge in Policy Decisions at the National Level, CRUSK. Institute for Social Research, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Christensen, J., & Holst, C. (2021). The Europeanization of National Knowledge Regimes. The Contestation of Expertise in the European Union (pp. 47-66). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Coalter, F. (2007). A wider social role for sport: Who's keeping the score? UK: Routledge.
Craft, J., & Howlett, M. (2012). Policy formulation, governance shifts & policy influence: Location & content in policy advisory systems. Journal of Public Policy, 32 (2), 79-98.
Carlisle, R. (2005). Think Tanks. In R. Carlisle (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Politics: The Left and the Right. London: Sage.
Denham, A., & Garnett, M. (2004). A Hollowed Out Tradition? British Think Tanks in the Twenty First Century. Think tank traditions: Policy research & the politics of ideas, 232-246.
Dickson, P. (1971). Think Tanks. New York: Atheneum.
Domhoff, G. W. (1998). Who rules America?: power and politics in the year 2000. McGraw-Hill Humanities, Social Sciences & World Languages.
Donnison, D. (1972). Research for policy. Minerva, 519-536.
Downe‐Wamboldt, B. (1992). Content analysis: method, applications, and issues. Health care for women international, 13(3), 313-321.
Downs, E. S. (2004). The Chinese energy security debate. The China Quarterly, 177, 21-41.
Dunn, W. N. (1980). The two-communities metaphor and models of knowledge use: an exploratory case survey. Knowledge, 1(4), 515-536.
DiMaggio, P. J. & Powell, W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields, American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.
Dye, T., & Zeigler, H. (1997). The irony of democracy. Classes and Elite in Democracy and Democratization: A Collection of Readings, 151-159.
Fraussen, B., & Halpin, D. (2017). Think tanks and strategic policy-making: the contribution of think tanks to policy advisory systems. Policy Sciences, 50(1), 105-124.
Gellner, W. (1995). The Politics of Policy" Political Think Tanks" and Their Markets in the US-Institutional Environment. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 497-510.
Goodwin, C., & Nacht, M. (1995). Beyond Government: Extending the Public Policy Debate in Emerging Democracies Boulder. CO: Westview Press.
Hall, P. A. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: the case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative politics, 275-296.
Hart, P. T., & Vromen, A. (2008). A new era for think tanks in public policy? International trends, Australian realities. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 67(2), 135-148.
Hashimoto, T., Hell, S., & Nam, S. W. (2005). Public policy research and training in Vietnam. Asian Development Bank Institute: Tokyo, Japan.
Hickey, G., & Kipping, C. (1996). Issues in research. A multi-stage approach to the coding of data from open-ended questions. Nurse Researcher, 4, 81-91.
Higgott, R. (1994). Ideas, identity and policy coordination in the Asia‐Pacific. The Pacific Review, 7(4), 367-379.
Houlihan, B., Tan, T. C., & Park, J. W. (2017). The national government’s perspective. In Routledge handbook of sports event management (pp. 289-305). Routledge.
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative health research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
Jones, C. O. (1984). An introduction to the study of piblic policy (pp. 29). CA: Brooks/Cole.
Kaid, L. L. (1989). Content analysis. In P. Emmert & L. L. Barker (Eds.), Measurement of communication behavior (pp. 197-217). New York: Longman.
Katwala, S. (2009). Bringing equality back in: the role of a think-tank. The Journal of Poverty & Social Justice, 17(1), 57.
Knight, J., & North, D. (1997). Explaining economic change: The interplay between cognition and institutions. Legal Theory, 3(3), 211-226.
Landry, J. (2020). Grounding the political spectrum: how three Canadian think tanks integrate social space. Critical Policy Studies, 14(4), 365-387.
Landry, J. (2021). An introduction to critical studies of think tanks. In Critical Perspectives on Think Tanks (pp. 1-18). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Landry, J. (2021). Whats in a think tanks mix of interventions? Plugging into politics and policymaking in Canadas knowledge regime. In Handbook on think tanks in public policy. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Ladi, S. (2011). Think-tanks, discursive institutionalism and policy change. Social science and policy challenges: Democracy, values and capacities, 205-220.
Ladi, S., Lazarou, E., & Hauck, J. (2018). Brazilian think tanks and the rise of austerity discourse. Policy and Society, 37(2), 222-242.
Lerner, J. Y. (2018). Getting the message across: evaluating think tank influence in Congress. Public Choice, 175(3), 347366.
Levi, M. (1997). Consent, dissent, and patriotism. Cambridge University Press.
Levi-Faur, D. (2005). ‘Agents of knowledge’and the convergence on a ‘new world order’: a review article. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(5), 954-965.
Lindquist, E. A. (1992). Public managers and policy communities: Learning to meet new challenges. Canadian Public Administration, 35(2), 127-159.
Lowndes, V., Marsh, D., & Stoker, G. (Eds.) (2017). Theory and methods in political science. Macmillan International Higher Education.
Lynn Jr, L. E. (1978). Knowledge and Policy: The Uncertain Connection. Study Project on Social Research and Development, 5.
Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. CA: Sage.
Mayring, P. (2004). Qualitative content analysis. A companion to qualitative research, 1(2), 159-176.
McGann, J. G. (2007). Think tanks & policy advice in the US: academics, advisors & advocates. New York: Routledge.
McGann, J. G. (2016). The fifth estate: think tanks, public policy, and governance. Brookings Institution Press.
McGann, J. G. (2018). 2017 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report. https://repository.upenn.edu/think_tanks/13
Medvetz, T. (2010). Public policy is like having a vaudeville act: Languages of duty and difference among think tank-affiliated policy experts. Qualitative Sociology, 33(4), 549-562.
Medvetz, T. (2012). Think Tanks in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Medvetz, T. (2012a). Murky power: Think tanks as boundary organizations. In Rethinking power in organizations, institutions, & markets. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Medvetz, T. (2013). Opening the black box of intellectual autonomy. Papers: revista de sociologia, 98(3), 573-579.
Medvetz, T. (2014). Field theory and organizational power: four modes of influence among public policy ‘think tanks’. In Bourdieu's Theory of Social Fields (pp. 239-255). Routledge.
Mendizabal, E., Sample, K., & Garcé, A. (2009). Dime a quién eschuchas-: think tanks y partidos políticos en América Latina. IDEA Internacional.
Menegazzi, S. (2014). Rethinking Think Tanks in contemporary China: cases from Financial and Environmental Governance in East Asia. Berlin, DE: Springer.
Menegazzi, S. (2017). Rethinking think tanks in contemporary China. Berlin, DE: Springer.
Nachiappan, K. (2013). Think tanks and the knowledge–policy nexus in China. Policy and Society, 32(3), 255-265.
Naughton, B. (2002). China's economic think tanks: their changing role in the 1990s. The China Quarterly, 171, 625-635.
Neunhöffer, G. (2001). Die liberale Konterrevolution–neoliberale Think Tanks in Polen. UTOPIE kreativ, (126), 313-323.
Pautz, H. (2007). Scottish think-tanks and policy networks. Scottish Affairs, 58(1), 57-77.
Pautz, H (2008) Think-tanks in Germany: The Bertelsmann Foundation’s Role in Labour Market Reform. Zeitschrift für Politikberatung, 1(3–4), 437–456.
Pautz, H. (2011). Revisiting the think-tank phenomenon. Public policy and administration, 26(4), 419-435.
Pautz, H. (2012). Think-tanks, social democracy and social policy. Berlin, DE: Springer.
Pautz, H. (2018). Think tanks, Tories and the austerity discourse coalition. Policy and Society, 37(2), 155-169.
Plehwe, D. (2014). Think tank networks and the knowledge–interest nexus: The case of climate change. Critical Policy Studies, 8(1), 101-115.
Plehwe, D., Neujeffski, M., & Krämer, W. (2018). Saving the dangerous idea: Austerity think tank networks in the European Union. Policy and Society, 37(2), 188-205.
Portney, K. E. (1986). Approaching public policy analysis: An introduction to policy and program research. Prentice Hall.
Potter, W. J., & Levine-Donnerstein, D. (1999). Rethinking validity & reliability in content analysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27, 258-284.
Raymond J. Struyk. (1999). Reconstructive critics: Think tanks in post-Soviet bloc democracies. Washington: The Urban Insitute.
Rein, M., & Winship, C. (1997). Policy entrepreneurs and the academic establishment: truth and values in social controversies. Intelligence, Political Inequality and Public Policy, ed. E White, 17-48.
Rhodes, R. A. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Open University.
Rich, A. (2004). Think tanks, public policy, and the politics of expertise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rich, R. F. (1977). Uses of social science information by federal bureaucrats: Knowledge for action versus knowledge for understanding. Using social research in public policy making, 199-211.
Salas-Porras, A. (2018). American think tank networks and expert debates around the Global Financial Crisis: Keynesian insurgents against austerity defenders. Policy and society, 37(2), 243-259.
Salas-Porras, A., & Murray, G. (2017). Think tanks & global politics: Key spaces in the structure of power. In Think tanks & global politics (pp. 1-23). Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Shön, D., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. Basic Book.
Shambaugh, D. L. (1987). China's national security research bureaucracy. The China Quarterly, 110, 276-304.
Sherrington, P. (2000). Shaping the policy agenda: Think tank activity in the European Union. Global Society, 14(2), 173-189.
Stone, D. (2001). Think tanks, global lesson-drawing and networking social policy ideas. Global social policy, 1(3), 338-360.
Stone, D. (2004). Transfer agents and global networks in the ‘transnationalization’of policy. Journal of European public policy, 11(3), 545-566.
Stone, D. (2007). Recycling bins, garbage cans or think tanks? Three myths regarding policy analysis institutes. Public administration, 85(2), 259-278.
Stone, D. (2008). The new networks of knowledge: Think tanks and the transnationalization of governance.
Stone, D. (2013). Capturing the political imagination: Think tanks and the policy process. UK: Routledge.
Stone, D. (2013). Knowledge actors and transnational governance: The private-public policy nexus in the global agora. Berlin, DE: Springer.
Schlesinger, P. (2009). Creativity and the experts: New Labour, think tanks, and the policy process. The international journal of press/politics, 14(1), 3-20.
Struyk, R. J. (2002). Transnational think‐tank networks: purpose, membership and cohesion. Global Networks, 2(1), 83-90.
Suzuki, T (2006), Think Tanks and Policy Formation in Japan.取自.http://www.tt2005.jp/modules/overwiew/index.php?Id=17
Teitz, M. B. (2009). Analysis for public policy at the state and regional levels the role of think tanks. International Regional Science Review, 32(4), 480-494.
Thunert, M. (2008). Think tanks in Germany: Their resources, strategies and potential. Zeitschrift für Politikberatung, 1(1), 32-52.
Tarschys, D., Baehr, P. R., & Wittrock, B. (1981). Policy analysis and policy innovation: patterns, problems and potentials. Sage.
Thunert, M. (2004). Think tanks in Germany. Society, 41(4), 66.
Verweel, P., & Wolterbeek, M. (2011). Dealledaagse krachtvan sport.
https://scientias.nl/winnen-de-alledaagse-kracht-van-sport/
Weaver, R. K. (1989). The changing world of think tanks. Political Science & Politics, 22(3), 563-578.
Weaver, R. K., & McGann, J. G. (2017). Think tanks and civil societies in a time of change. In Think Tanks & Civil Societies (pp. 1-36). Routledge.
Williams, A. (2008). Why don’t the French do Think Tanks? France faces up to the Anglo-Saxon superpowers, 1918–1921. Review of International Studies, 34(1), 53-68.
Zimmerman, E. (2016). Think tanks and non-traditional security: Governance entrepreneurs in Asia. Springer.