Before starting this activity, it is important to understand why think tanks matter in sociology. Think tanks are organisations that produce reports, policy ideas and recommendations, often using research evidence to influence governments, the media and public debate. This means they can play a major role in shaping how social problems are defined and what kinds of social policies are seen as acceptable or effective.

For sociology students, learning about think tanks helps you see that policy decisions are not based on evidence alone. Different groups may use the same evidence but interpret it differently because of their values, political ideology, and the interests of funding bodies. Studying think tanks therefore helps you understand the relationship between sociology and social policy, and why sociologists debate questions such as value freedom, applied sociology, and public sociology. In short, this topic helps you think more critically about who influences policy and why.

“Same problem, different solutions”

Purpose

To introduce students to think tanks as policy actors and to show how the same social issue can produce very different policy recommendations depending on:

• what evidence is selected
• how evidence is interpreted
• values and assumptions
• political ideology

This also helps students apply:

• social problems
• social policy
• political ideology
• funding bodies/funding agencies
• applied sociology
• public sociology
• value freedom

---

Learning objectives

By the end of the activity, students should be able to:

1. Explain what a think tank is and how it may influence social policy.
2. Identify what evidence is being used in a policy argument.
3. Spot assumptions and values behind policy proposals.
4. Suggest which political ideology may shape a think tank’s recommendations.
5. Evaluate whether evidence is ever truly value-free in policy debates.

Teacher Instructions (Step-by-Step)

1) Starter (5 mins): “What is a think tank?”

Ask students:

• “Who influences government policy apart from politicians?”
• “What might a think tank do?”

Then give a short working definition:

Think tanks are organisations that produce reports, policy ideas and recommendations to influence public debate and government decision-making.

You can note that think tanks often:

• use research/evidence
• promote particular solutions
• may reflect particular values/ideologies

---

2) Introduce the social issue (2 mins)

Tell students they will analyse four fictional think tank summaries responding to the same social problem:

Youth crime and anti-social behaviour in a town/city area

They must act like sociologists and ask:

• What evidence is being used?
• What is being assumed?
• What values are shaping the recommendations?

---

3) Main task (15–20 mins)

Students read:

1. the Social Issue Case File
2. all 4 think tank summaries

Then complete the analysis grid for each summary.

This can be done:

• individually
• in pairs
• in expert groups (one think tank each, then teach others)

The scenarios can be downloaded from the link below

4) Whole-class feedback (10–15 mins)

Take each think tank in turn. Ask:

• What evidence did they focus on?
• What did they ignore?
• What assumptions were made?
• Which ideology might be shaping this?
• Which policy is most likely to be adopted — and why?

---

5) Follow-up discussion / mini debate (5–10 mins)

Use the key question:

“Does evidence speak for itself, or is it always interpreted through values?”

This is a great bridge into:

• value freedom
• political ideology
• public sociology
• applied sociology

Extension Tasks

1) Which think tank is using sociology most effectively?

Choose one and explain:

• what sociological evidence it uses well
• what it misses
• whether it is closer to applied sociology or public sociology

2) Funding Bodies Link

Imagine each think tank relies on different funding sources (business donors, charities, local government, campaign groups).
How might this influence:

• the research they highlight?
• the policies they support?

3) Value Freedom Question

Can any of the four reports be described as fully value-free? Why/why not?

Teacher Guidance / Indicative Answers

Important note

Students do not need to use exact ideological labels perfectly. The key goal is to recognise that policy recommendations are shaped by assumptions and values, not just evidence.

---

Think Tank A: Centre for Safe Streets

Evidence used

• police records
• residents’ complaints
• hotspot incidents
• public fear / confidence

Values/assumptions

• order and control are top priority
• offending seen as linked to weak consequences
• visible enforcement deters behaviour
• law-abiding public need protection first

Likely ideology influence

• more punitive/control-based
• emphasis on authority, discipline, enforcement
• often associated with more right-leaning / law-and-order approaches (students can phrase this generally)

Criticisms

• may ignore structural causes (poverty, service cuts)
• may over-rely on enforcement
• may criminalise young people without addressing root causes
• may treat residents’ fear as enough evidence for policy escalation

---

Think Tank B: Future Paths Institute

Evidence used

• interviews with young people
• youth workers’ accounts
• evidence of youth service cuts
• links between exclusion and youth problems

Values/assumptions

• young people are shaped by opportunities and exclusion
• prevention is more effective than punishment
• trust and inclusion matter
• social context drives behaviour

Likely ideology influence

• more welfare/prevention/social investment oriented
• stronger role for public/community services
• more interventionist/support-based

Criticisms

• may underestimate immediate public demand for visible action
• long-term outcomes can be slower
• costly in short term
• may appear too soft to some audiences

---

Think Tank C: Learning and Behaviour Policy Unit

Evidence used

• school attendance/exclusion data
• behavioural indicators
• measurable school-based risk factors
• some acknowledgment of interviews, but prioritises metrics

Values/assumptions

• schools are central institutions for prevention
• measurable indicators should drive policy
• early identification and targeted intervention can reduce risk
• practical/administrative efficiency is important

Likely ideology influence

• can fit a managerial/technocratic approach (students may phrase as “pragmatic” or “data-led”)
• not purely punitive or welfare-based; focuses on institutional intervention
• can align with policy cultures focused on monitoring and outcomes

Criticisms

• may over-burden schools
• may frame social issues as school-management problems
• risk of labelling pupils through “risk indicators”
• may underplay housing/family/community factors

---

Think Tank D: Family Resilience Foundation

Evidence used

• parent interviews
• family stress accounts
• economic insecurity, overcrowding, childcare issues
• links across housing/health/family life

Values/assumptions

• family circumstances shape youth behaviour
• support over blame
• structural pressure matters
• coordinated services are needed

Likely ideology influence

• support-based / welfare / structural explanation
• emphasis on social and economic conditions
• stronger state/local service role

Criticisms

• may place too much focus on family and not peer/street dynamics
• expensive and complex to coordinate
• outcomes may be difficult to measure quickly
• some may view parenting support as intrusive (even if voluntary)

---

Whole-Class Discussion Prompts

Use one or more:

1. Which think tank would most likely influence policy if an election was near? Why?
   (Brings in political ideology + media/public opinion)
2. Which report uses qualitative evidence most clearly? Which relies most on quantitative evidence?
3. Which report sounds most “objective”? Is it actually value-free?
4. Can two think tanks use the same evidence but reach different conclusions? Give an example.
5. What does this activity suggest about the relationship between sociology and social policy?