Uncovering the veil of policy expertise: A relational and categorization perspective on the visibility of U.S. think tanks’ expert claims

Think tanks are increasingly prominent purveyors of “policy expertise,” yet their expert claims vary widely in credibility and visibility across key audiences. This study develops a relational and categorization account of how think tanks’ expert claims become visible in U.S. media and Congress. Building on Jensen et al.’s status identity framework, we argue that audiences first construe think tanks through category prototypes such as university without students, contract research, and advocacy, and that prototypicality should differentially elevate visibility across audiences. We further propose that audiences assess the credibility, or category loyalty, of these expert claims using affiliational status cues embedded in think tanks’ board interlock networks spanning academia, government, media, and corporations. A more balanced portfolio of cross field ties signals independence and strengthens visibility. We test these arguments with a comprehensive dataset of 784 U.S. think tanks observed in 2006 and 2012, combining IRS Form 990 board data from Guidestar, field level board rosters, and mission statement text analysis using prototype dictionaries anchored in founding documents of Brookings, RAND, and Heritage. Using random effects negative binomial models, we find strong audience contingent effects of prototypicality. Most notably, advocacy alignment is associated with substantially greater Fox News visibility. Interlocks with media and academic fields are robust predictors of media visibility. Interaction patterns suggest that balanced cross field ties condition the returns to prototypicality, though effects are weaker for congressional mentions. Overall, the findings clarify how category conformity and cross field embeddedness jointly structure the public visibility of policy expertise.