Xiao Honggen, Dai Bin | When Truth Becomes Power: A Institutional Ethnography of a Think Tank

For the first time, the China Tourism Academy was selected as a subject for special research and was published as a cover article in a major international academic journal focusing on tourism studies. Dr. Liu Xiangyan, a special translator, translated it into Chinese to help various parties better understand the development process, value orientation, theoretical construction, and practical participation methods of the China Tourism Academy during its first decade, as well as its future development direction. This translation is solely for educational and research purposes and does not change any intellectual property attributes. When citing, please indicate the source. (Xiao, H., & Dai, B. (2020). When truth is power: Institutional ethnography of a think tank. International Journal of Tourism Research, 22(4), 438–450. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2347)

When Truth Becomes Power: A Institutional Ethnography of a Think Tank Author: Xiao Honggen, Dai Bin Translator: Liu Xiangyan Original Article Published in International Journal of Tourism Research, Volume 7, 2020

Abstract

This article is a systematic ethnography on the establishment of a tourism think tank in a major tourism country. The article discusses the four roles of the China Tourism Research Institute, namely as an advisor, scholar, advocate, and knowledge disseminator. The discussion is conducted within the context of the relationship between theory and practice. The government think tank researchers uphold the noble ideals and aspirations of conducting research for the country and disseminating knowledge for the country, both speaking the truth to power and speaking the truth for power. The discussion in this article may be limited by the researcher's position or perspective, but this ethnography can still provide a reference for the research of other source/destination societies' think tanks or knowledge institutions. Keywords: China Tourism Research Institute, Systematic Ethnography, Theory and Practice, Think Tank, Tourism Policy

1. Introduction

This article regards "think tanks" as knowledge-based strategic organizations that drive the formulation and development of tourism policies. This study presents a institutional ethnography of a "think tank" - the China Tourism Academy (CTA). The three objectives of this research are as follows: (1) To present and analyze the think tank as a knowledge mobilization mechanism that promotes evidence-based practices in the tourism industry; (2) To identify and evaluate the role of the think tank in promoting the learning of tourism policies; (3) To contribute to the relevant theories on leveraging research to promote tourism policies and development in rapidly growing tourist markets/destination economies. This interpretive/constructivist investigation research is conducted through the following three questions: (1) What are the roles, responsibilities, and challenges of the China Tourism Academy as a think tank in promoting the development of tourism research and practice? (2) How does the China Tourism Academy promote tourism policies and development through knowledge-based practices? (3) What distinguishes the China Tourism Academy from traditional academic institutions? This research adopts a (semi-)internal perspective, which also constitutes a potential limitation in the writing of this institutional ethnography. Overall, this research is conducted within the context of think tank development and practice.

2 Literature Review

In the face of increasingly complex policy and development situations, policymaking calls for the participation of professional knowledge, leading to a surge in the number of think tanks (Ladi, 2006). As an organizational form heavily engaged in knowledge-based activities, think tanks have become a focal point of policy research. As Stone (2004) points out, governments and international organizations often view think tanks as a means to enhance policy analysis capabilities, promote civil society development, and strengthen human capital. Weaver and McGann (2017, p. 3) note that think tanks, as civil society organizations, typically play a mediating role between government and the public; identify, clarify, and evaluate current or emerging problems, challenges, or proposals; translate ideas and issues into policy topics; offer independent and thoughtful insights in policy debates; and provide a constructive platform for key stakeholders to exchange ideas during the policymaking process. More specifically, the tasks of think tanks include conducting research to address policy problems, making recommendations on pressing policy issues, evaluating government projects, promoting the development of problem-solving networks, (re)training government personnel through continuing education or training programs, and providing policy interpretation for the media (Weaver & McGann, 2017). 2.1 Think Tanks in Policy Research and Practice As knowledge institutions, think tanks have been widely incorporated into organizations engaged in policy-related, technological, or scientific research and analysis (Stone, 1996), and their size, structure, and culture often vary. Think tanks originated in applied knowledge research in Anglo-American countries, but existing applied knowledge research has questioned or challenged the initial concept of think tanks as “relatively autonomous entities” or relatively autonomous organizations engaged in policy problem analysis, independent of governments, political parties, and pressure groups in order to engage in “free thinking” (McGann & Weave, 2017; Stone, 1996; Stone & Denham, 2004, pp. 2–3; Weiss, 1992; Xiao & Smith, 2007). Research in different countries adds to the complexity or dilemma of defining think tanks, as they may operate within governments like Russian and Central/Eastern European think tanks (Sandle, 2004), or operate as independent non-profit organizations, or be affiliated with commercial corporate entities like most Japanese think tanks (Ueno, 2004). For French and Chinese think tanks (Fieschi & Gaffney, 2004; Shai, 2004), the line between policy intellectuals and the state is often so blurred that to still consider autonomy or independence as a characteristic of think tanks would be detached from the local cultural context. Despite their diverse organizational forms, the relationship or distance between think tanks and the government is crucial to relevant research. They operate "within the government machine, but outside the 'functional departments,' either fully funded by the government but maintaining formal autonomy, or partially funded by the government, or even completely financially independent" (Wallace, 2004, p. 282). By maintaining a certain distance from the day-to-day operations of the government while remaining closely connected with policymakers, think tank researchers are often in a position of (semi-)detachment from immediate policy issues. Stone (1996), in her pioneering research on think tanks and the policy process, divides this research into two categories: one focusing on organizational form, and the other viewing think tanks as tools for raising broader questions in policymaking, examining the role of ideas and expertise in decision-making. It is noteworthy that the former elucidates the reasons and manner of think tank emergence and why some think tanks are more influential than others by distinguishing independent public policy research institutions from academic research centers, government research departments, and lobbyists, while the latter tends to employ network approaches such as "policy communities," "advocacy alliances," and "knowledge communities" to explain why ideas are so important to broad public policy (Stone, 2004, p. 2). Rich (2004, p. 11) uses the same classification, defining think tanks as "independent, nonprofit organizations that produce and rely primarily on expertise and ideas to gain support, thereby influencing the policy process." He further divides think tanks into market-oriented and non-market-oriented think tanks. However, in practice, classifying think tanks into specific types or categories is often very difficult because they often share common characteristics, and their tasks and responsibilities overlap (Abelson, 2002). Furthermore, based on organizational characteristics, recruitment models, and the pursuit of academic research standards, Weaver and McGann (2017, pp. 7–8) categorize think tanks into four basic types: (1) academic (or universities without enrolled students), (2) contract researchers, (3) propaganda think tanks, and (4) party think tanks. It is noteworthy that the first two types of think tanks recruit highly educated staff, emphasize the use of rigorous research methods, and strive to make their research perceived by a broad audience as objective, credible, and truth-seeking. The latter two types share commonalities in their connections to ideologies or interest groups and in their focus on issues or needs related to political parties. While this categorization of think tanks has a clear advantage in explaining “telling the truth to/for power,” Weaver and McGann (2017, p. 8) note that each type faces unique challenges and pressures in balancing “academic objectivity and research integrity with policy relevance.” 2.2 Speaking the Truth to/For Power Theoretically, Michel Foucault's concepts of knowledge and power (1972, 1990) are useful for exploring the role of think tanks in policy and policymaking (Richardson, 996; Xue & Kerstetter, 2018). Notably, knowledge or truth is often seen as the foundation for establishing or forming power. Thus, policy, as a political process or form of decision-making, can be termed "truth" through the exercise of power (Richardson, 1996, p. 283). Similarly, from a practical perspective, the long-standing debate about the role of scholars in policy research, their relationship with policymakers, and the impact of this relationship on research (or practice) helps to reveal the implicit values ​​behind policy research (Thomas, 2011; Thomas & Ormerod, 2017). According to this Foucaultian concept or discourse, intellectuals' participation in politics is a result of their position as individuals within society as a whole, especially within the political system, reflected in their discourse (e.g., conscience, consciousness, and eloquence), which to some extent reveals a specific truth. Foucault's views on the relationship between truth and power reveal a misalignment in the focus of mainstream policy research. Researchers should not seek the ultimate truth supporting policy arguments, but rather focus more on how, why, and by whom the truth is attributed to the power behind the policy (Richardson, 1996, p. 283). Therefore, to understand policy as a process, multiple discourses or discourse elements can be applied.

We must reconstruct this relationship of truth and power, making it encompass both spoken and hidden content, demanded and forbidden discourse; making it reflect the changes and influences brought about by the speaker, his power position, and the institutional environment in which he happens to be situated; and making it also include the same formulas that are altered and reused for opposing goals. Discourse, like silence, is neither a complete submission to power nor a simple confrontation with power (Foucault, 1990, p. 101). Richardson (1996) argues that power exists not only in political structures, institutions, and social relations, but also in the language and texts produced by specific institutions or embedded in institutional contexts. Therefore, the positions of truth and power are not mutually exclusive, but can be easily merged based on policy procedures or environment. "Intellectuals speak the truth to those who have not yet seen the truth in the name of those who are forbidden to speak the truth" (Foucault & Deleuze, 1977, p. 207). Similarly, Bourdieu (1989), in what he calls the "sphere of power," likens the policy situation to a social space in which spheres or power are divided. As he observed, this space is “constructed in such a way that the closer an agent, group, or institution is to this space, the more common rights they possess; the farther away, the fewer rights they have” (Bourdieu, 1989, p. 16). In understanding how think tanks play this role of “telling the truth to/for power,” Stone (2004) argues that methodological issues lead to widely divergent research results. Stone (2004, p. 11) points out that due to the complexity of policy processes in specific contexts or situations, “it is difficult to find uncontroversial examples of a one-to-one correspondence between think tank reports and subsequent government policies.” While previous research has been skeptical of any direct influence think tanks may have on policymaking or policy change, their social influence as agenda setters and their role in shaping policy narratives and capturing the public imagination are widely recognized (McGann & Weaver, 2017; Stone, 1996; Stone & Denham, 2004, pp. 2–3; Weiss, 1992). Research also shows that the extent of think tank influence is closely related to their interactions with "policy communities," "knowledge communities," "advocacy alliances," and "discourse alliances" (Stone, 2004, p. 13). Given the challenges or difficulties in quantifying think tank influence, Stone (1996, p. 4) proposed another analytical perspective: "no longer focusing on the magnitude of think tank influence, but rather on the role that think tanks perceive themselves to play and their contributions to the policy process..." (italicized original text). 2.3 Think Tanks in the Context of Chinese Policy In Chinese history, more precisely, after the tradition of the imperial examination system, intellectuals were often equated with government officials or official scholars within government bureaucracies. As a unique type of knowledge disseminator in the knowledge spectrum, think tank researchers are also known as "institutional intellectuals," providing professional knowledge and policy advice to political leaders in a range of policy areas and playing an increasingly important role (Shai, 2004, p. 141). Given that serving and contributing to the state is a characteristic of official Chinese scholars (Goldman, 1981; Goldman, Cheek & Hamrin, 1987), Shai (2004, p. 145) divides institutional intellectuals into: (1) scholars who serve and work in administrative institutions such as official or semi-official think tanks or universities; (2) experts who are usually well-educated and specialize in political and economic issues and serve the interests of the ruling party; (3) intellectuals who provide policy advice to leaders through informal channels and play a key role in decision-making; and (4) scholars who seek to join official associations or are recruited into bureaucracies, which puts them in a contradictory role as servants of the regime and critics of society. Given the implicit reciprocal relationship between established intellectuals and political leaders, Chinese think tanks play four specific roles in the policy process: (1) information filters, providing leaders with raw data analysis; (2) policy defenders, defending and legitimizing the policies of current leaders; (3) introducers of new ideas, introducing important ideas or best practices prevalent abroad; and (4) dialogue partners, gathering information by participating in or holding international conferences or maintaining dialogues with foreign researchers, which is generally considered helpful for Chinese policymakers to understand the views and intentions of foreign powers (Shai, 2004, pp. 148–152). Regarding China's policy process, Zhu (2009, 2011) points out that different types of think tanks exert policy influence through different mechanisms. Notably, expert knowledge, government connections, and personal relationships are the main factors determining the extent of a think tank's influence in China. Based on the standard of "autonomy," think tanks are defined as "stable, autonomous organizations that research and consult on policy issues to influence the policy process" (Zhu, 2009, p. 337; Zhu & Xue, 2007, p. 453). According to organizational characteristics, Chinese think tanks can be divided into: (1) government-funded semi-official public institutions, which have clear administrative ties with the government through personnel and financial resources; and (2) non-governmental think tanks, including policy research institutions registered as enterprises, non-profit organizations, or affiliated institutions within universities (Zhu, 2011, pp. 671–672). Historically, Chinese think tanks have evolved from the initial stage of "official research systems within government agencies" (1949–1977), to semi-official think tanks (1978–1989), and finally to the non-governmental think tanks that emerged in the 1990s. With China's recent development, think tanks have begun to enhance the country's image or safeguard its interests through activities with international influence, transforming their role into (or becoming) "soft power agents" (Menegazzi, 2018, p. 93). They play a central role in China's economic progress, political reform, international relations, global governance, and enhancing the country's standing in international affairs. In an earlier stage, Airey and Chong (2010) explored how the nature of China's tourism industry and its decentralized power structure influence policymakers with different values ​​and interests in formulating and implementing tourism policies. They revealed how policy-oriented learning enables policymakers, often with the support of national leaders, to achieve success in some key areas. As with other industries or economic sectors, tourism, as a highly interconnected industry, has become deeply integrated into all aspects of the country's overall development, involving a range of key roles and institutional procedures in China's national-level tourism decision-making (Airey & Chong, 2010). 2.4 The Theorization of Theory-Practice Relationships Conceptually, this work is conducted within the context of applied research related to practice or theory-practice relationships, particularly by using concepts such as knowledge management and mobilization (Ives, Torrey & Gordon, 1998), research serving public policy (Bardach, 1984; Oh & Rich, 1996; Saxe, 1986), policy-oriented learning (Airey & Chong, 2010), and learning organizations (Senge, 1990) as guiding concepts. These concepts provide reference and guidance for the analysis and discussion in this paper. It is noteworthy that research on practice shows a paradigm shift in the generation, dissemination, and utilization of research to achieve better practices (Crane, 1972; Hagstrom, 1965; Latour, 1987). At the heart of these research discussions is the utilization of knowledge-guided (or evidence-based) practice. These discussions are built upon and directly related to many theories about knowledge production, dissemination, and use. These theories include two community theories (Caplan, 1979), systems theory (Wingens, 1990), social interaction models (Yin & Moore, 1988), and problem-solving theory (Rosenberg, 1982). They help us theoretically understand knowledge mobilization related to various knowledge use outcomes (Deshpande & Zaltman, 1983), the various stakeholders involved in knowledge use (Landry, Lamari & Amara, 2003), and the complexities in constructing or managing the research-practitioner relationship (Beesley, 2005; Cooper, 2006; Shaw & Williams, 2009; Xiao & Smith, 2007). In dealing with the scholar-practitioner relationship, it is noteworthy that the focus of research methods has shifted from positivist measurement to constructivist engagement (Dunn, 1983a, 1983b; Patton, 1997), resulting in different concepts for theorizing or explaining knowledge use (Rich, 1997). These concepts include (1) knowledge transfer, an empirical model of knowledge use based on the two typical community theory assumptions in physical sciences and engineering (Patton, 1988); (2) knowledge exchange, collaborative efforts in the application and development of hardware and culture that promote knowledge use (Weiss, 1992); (3) knowledge management, extending applied theory to the fields of business and information management (Beesley, 2005; Ives, Torrey & Gordon, 1998; Shaw & Williams, 2009); (4) learning organizations or learning organizations embedded in organizational research (Senge, 1990), and similarly, policy-oriented learning carried out in policy research (Airey & Chong, 2010); (5) knowledge networks, a social network approach to sharing knowledge (Schonstrom, 2005); and (6) learning and practice communities, a community paradigm that mobilizes knowledge and advocates for or guides better practices (Wenger, 1998). While the aforementioned theories help to understand the components, processes, and outcomes guiding practical research, the roles and types of researchers, disseminators, and users in the field of knowledge development have not been fully studied, and we still know very little about them. This paper, through institutional ethnography of the China Tourism Academy (CTA), focuses on exploring the role of "think tanks" in promoting policy-oriented learning and driving knowledge-based practices in the tourism industry. 3. Institutional Ethnography of the China Tourism Academy (CTA) Institutional ethnography (IE), originally proposed by Dorothy Smith (1987, 2002, 2005, 2006), is widely regarded as a comprehensive approach to understanding systems (Wright & Rocco, 2018), a method for thinking about the relationship between individual activities, knowledge, social and political behavior (Campbell & Gregor, 2002), or a critical ethnography used to study the institutional conditions of experience (Darville, 2002). As Wright and Rocco (2018, p. 1659) point out, a core premise of IE (Information Engineering) is that people's personal experiences are organized, connected, and shaped by larger power relations, the so-called "dominant relations" (Campbell & Gregor, 2002, p. 18), which are contextual settings in which power is generated or perpetuated within an organization or society (Campbell & Manicom, 1995). The China Tourism Academy (www.ctaweb.org) is chosen as the subject of this study due to its unique role as a knowledge institution in researching and guiding the development of Chinese tourism policy. Established on June 6, 2008, the China Tourism Academy is a specialized institution directly under the former China National Tourism Administration (CNTA). Its aim is to provide technical support for tourism policy and planning, cultivate high-level and professional talent for the tourism industry, and promote international exchange in tourism research and practice through research and the promotion of knowledge application in tourism development, thereby fulfilling its mission as a "government think tank, industry advisor, and academic hub." 3.1 Institutional Background and Stance Following the national ministerial-level institutional restructuring (effective March 2018), the China Tourism Academy (CTA) is currently under the administration of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism (MCT). In terms of organizational structure (Figure 1), the CTA is headquartered in Beijing, with three comprehensive management departments and six internal research departments. It receives support from tourism research experts from 14 universities/research institutions, which have been designated as external branches or research bases of the CTA in 12 cities across 11 provinces. Furthermore, the CTA has obtained national approval for a "Postdoctoral Research Station" and has appointed renowned domestic and international experts and scholars as members of its Academic Committee and advisors.

Figure 1. Organizational Structure of the China Tourism Academy. It is noteworthy that IE (Institutional Ethnography) involves the researcher's position, an epistemological position used to analyze how participants' daily experiences are shaped by a larger social process within an institution (Slade, 2010, p. 462). In this study, position should not be understood as the researcher's identity, but rather as a tool or means by which organizational dynamics and subtle working relationships can be captured. Therefore, studying issues from a (semi-)insider perspective helps to understand organizational work and reveal the processes by which it generates policy impact. The first author of this study has long been dedicated to knowledge development research, and his long-term membership on the Academic Committee of the China Tourism Academy (2012-2019) and the former CNTA Tourism Reform and Development Advisory Committee (2015-2018) greatly facilitated the implementation and development of this research. The collaborator's identity further strengthens the insider perspective of institutional ethnography, making the analysis entirely based on the institution's context, with sufficient reflexivity in the survey report or interpretation, and unaffected by the report itself. As Slade (2010) observed, the role and presence of the investigator are an indispensable part of IE research. Paradigmally, IE cannot be absolutely objective because all knowledge is based on experience, and researchers and information providers are people living in their own experiential worlds. Institutional ethnologists often use insiders' knowledge of a phenomenon to depict "dominance relations" (Campbell & Manicom, 1995). 3.2 Research Methods To achieve the objectives of this study, various data obtained through documents/archives, insider interviews, and observations were compiled to analyze and interpret how the China Tourism Academy organizes and coordinates applied tourism research and its impact on tourism policy and development. 3.2.1 Textual Analysis As Slade (2010, p. 463) stated, analyzing texts is crucial for IE to uncover information implicit in documents that shape people's work processes and coordinate actions between departments. Smith (2005) termed this coordination and process "text-mediated social organization," where the text is not a static document but a means by which dominion relations exercise power (Slade, 2010, p. 463). This institutional ethnography collected a series of documents and publications from the China Tourism Academy (as shown in Table 1) (http://eng.ctaweb.org/html/PublicationsofCTA/index.html) for subsequent analysis.

Table 1 Collection of a series of documents and publications from the China Tourism Academy for use in text analysis

In addition, this study regularly accessed the official website and WeChat/Weibo platform of the China Tourism Academy (https://www.weibo.com/p/1006061976676651/home?from=page_100606&mod=TAB&is_hot=1#place) to retrieve news reports, event announcements, and notices related to this study for textual analysis. As Wright and Rocco (2018, p. 1664) stated, IE researchers seek such textual clues to help understand how the power of think tanks is embedded in social media and institutions, and to help identify the discursive meaning in the language used by think tank researchers when describing their daily work experience or practices. 3.2.2 Key Stakeholder Interviews In institutional ethnography, interviews are typically unstructured and open-ended, much like a conversation (Caspar, Ratner, Phinney & MacKinnon, 2016, p. 953; Devault & McCoy, 2002), to elicit the views or thoughts naturally expressed by the interviewees (Smith, 2005). Interviews with researchers at the China Tourism Academy (both from its Beijing headquarters and external research bases) were conceived and conducted around the broad objectives of the investigation. Typically, interviews with key stakeholders begin with general questions such as, "What is the role of the China Tourism Academy as a think tank?" or "How does it fulfill its think tank role?" "Then, more specific questions were raised regarding the application of the China Tourism Academy's research in Chinese tourism policy and policy-making. Subsequently, other related questions were gradually raised or arose naturally during the conversation (Smith, 2005). The completed interviews, in a summarizing and iterative manner, facilitated subsequent interviews, including the formulation and expression of questions and the advancement of the conversation. Over the past few years (2016-2019), we conducted interviews with 14 informed individuals from within the China Tourism Academy, its academic committee, and external research bases in Beijing, Guangzhou, Guilin, Hangzhou, Jiangmen, Nanjing, Quanzhou, Shanghai, and Xiamen (Table 2). These interviews lasted between 45 and 90 minutes each, and were transcribed verbatim in Chinese with the interviewees' permission, and subsequently transcribed in the same language for repeated reading and inductive analysis."

Table 2 Profile of Respondents

3.2.3 Natural Observation From a ethnographic perspective, the natural observation of the China Tourism Research Institute as a think tank was also "embedded or incorporated" into the daily work of the two authors (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). One of them was an internal staff member who had been observing the behaviors, perceptions, and expectations (or those expected) that he and his colleagues witnessed and perceived as researchers of the think tank, as well as how they fulfilled their roles to accomplish the mission of the China Tourism Research Institute. As the investigator of this IE, he had a philosophical and strategic perspective, and when discussing or writing about the content of the China Tourism Research Institute as a think tank, he had typical self-reflection, was skilled in rhetoric and was eloquent. The semi-intrusive participation of the other author (2012-2019) enabled him to regularly interact with the members of the China Tourism Research Institute and related meetings. From a temporal perspective, the data collection of this IE was periodic, repetitive, and is actually still ongoing.

In addition, meetings during the period of 2012-2018 provided a good venue for participant observation through meeting minutes or memos, casual/informal conversations with meeting participants, and interactive exchanges with personnel from the China Tourism Research Institute/former National Tourism Administration. These conferences include the Tourism Science Annual Conference held by the China Tourism Research Institute in Beijing (held on April 21-24, 2012 and April 22-23, 2017), the China Tourism Research Internationalization Seminar and Symposium (November 8, 2012), the founding conference of the China Tourism Reform and Development Advisory Committee of the former National Tourism Administration (October 11, 2015, Zhuhai), and the subsequent "Symposium" (February 26, 2016, Beijing). It is worth mentioning that the participants' observations in natural settings enriched the content and perspectives of this IE. 3.3 Data Analysis: The raw materials used in this study are all in Chinese and come in various forms, including interview records, institutional texts/documents, observation notes, and meeting memos, as well as online articles and posts on the official website or social media of the China Tourism Research Institute. These multiple sources and forms of data are synthesized for inductive analysis (Glaser&Strauss, 1967; Strauss&Corbin, 1998). The initial rounds of literature reading and data encoding were repeated in Chinese. As this work progressed, before the survey results were translated into English for publication and communication, the two authors double checked the relevant concept sorting and topic classification. If a citation is excerpted for use in the final manuscript, its English translation is accurately completed in the actual context of the excerpt to eliminate any distortion or potential loss of meaning caused by the context. In the process of translating between these two languages, we ensure the accuracy of the translation by consciously controlling the influence of bias while maintaining sensitivity to the content contained in the data (Strauss&Corbin, 1998, p. 43). It is worth mentioning that the authors of this article are capable of easily engaging in academic exchanges between these two languages. Smith (2005) pointed out that IE's data analysis follows a non fixed method. Guided by the research objective of this article, which is to explore and clarify the role of the China Tourism Research Institute as a think tank in mobilizing research in China's tourism policy and development, relevant induction and analysis have been repeatedly conducted. After exhausting the interpretation and understanding of the position, process (channel), and responsibilities or obligations of the China Tourism Research Institute as a unique knowledge institution in promoting China's tourism research and practice, four roles of the China Tourism Research Institute have been summarized (consultant, scholar, advocate, and knowledge disseminator). As Caspar et al. (2016, p. 954) stated, "Solid analysis based on multiple sources and forms of data provides the necessary foundation for determining when data collection and analysis will be completed. 4. Research findings and discussions: As a government affiliated research institution, the basic task of the China Tourism Research Institute is to conduct research and participate in research activities, provide intellectual support for industry development, and influence tourism scholars, industry experts, and policy makers through the publication and exchange of research results. However, in terms of achieving goals, integrating resources, self positioning, and communicating with the public, the China Tourism Research Institute has always maintained a sense of autonomy and nobility. Overall, China's tourism research not only conducts targeted research for the industry and policies, but also collaborates with top domestic think tanks such as the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and the Development Research Center of the State Council, international organizations such as the World Tourism Organization, similar institutions such as the Korea Cultural Tourism Institute, and policy research centers or tourism research institutions within universities. Unlike universities, the China Tourism Research Institute does not have students, but it has always been tasked with cultivating talents for the Chinese tourism industry. From an organizational perspective, a 'system' (or 'institution') is a means of achieving talent or human development goals. The China Tourism Research Institute is a knowledge intensive organization. It is an incubator for cultivating industry talents. In this way, high-quality professionals can not only contribute theory or wisdom to the development of China's tourism industry, but also put their views into practice, becoming a source of inspiration for others or other organizations to better serve the industry. "(Interviewee 5, CTA Senior Researcher, April 2017) Therefore, talent cultivation should attach importance to the shaping of three qualities: the ideology or values of doing the right thing in the right direction, the theory and methods of solid scientific research, and the humanistic care or thinking mode of long-term and comprehensive academic development. In terms of responsibilities and influence, the China Tourism Research Institute plays the roles of consultant, scholar, advocate, and knowledge broker/disseminator in the development and policy research of China's tourism industry. Although these roles may appear different on the surface, in essence, they are interconnected and related within the deep structure of the China Tourism Research Institute's intelligent database. 4.1 CTA serves as a consultant for tourism policy formulation and development. One of the main tasks of the China Tourism Research Institute is to act as a consultant for government regulatory departments, thereby influencing the formulation of tourism policies. It provides technical and intellectual support for the strategies or policies of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism/former National Tourism Administration. Usually, the China Tourism Research Institute achieves its consulting role by providing internal research reports to leaders, including tourism reference materials, information bulletins, and tourism news. This rapid internal communication aims to provide government departments with highlights and priorities related to the tourism industry and its related issues. Attending government meetings, holding seminars, workshops, or engaging in dialogue with government officials may all have an impact on policy-making. According to interviews, the China Tourism Research Institute usually holds two types of seminars for government officials: "general tourism lectures/workshops" for non tourism sector officials, and "thematic/special topic seminars or lectures" for officials from the Ministry of Culture and Tourism/former National Tourism Administration. It is not difficult to understand that these two types of lectures targeting government officials play an important role in the advisory role of the China Tourism Research Institute. The former helps other non tourism sectors better understand the tourism industry, while the latter often communicates industry hot issues to tourism policy makers in a timely manner. As one interviewee happily recalled his previous conversation with senior leaders of the National Tourism Administration: "Since the establishment of the China Tourism Research Institute, not all of your suggestions or reports have been adopted. But whenever there are major decision-making issues, I always seek your advice." (Interviewee 1, CTA Senior Researcher, April 2016) In addition, researchers from the China Tourism Research Institute actively participate in government project research. These achievements have had a profound impact on the tourism policies of governments at the national, regional, and local levels. Here is a small case study from the China Tourism Research Institute that has the potential to provide policy basis. One interviewee is proud of her participation in and completion of research projects such as tourist satisfaction surveys, tourism economy monitoring and early warning systems, and "Analysis and Development Forecast of China's Tourism Economy". "I am sincerely happy to see that local city tourism bureaus have really read these reports and made annotations on them, highlighting key points. (Interviewer on the 13th, Senior Researcher at CTA, June 2019) 4.2 CTA, as a practitioner of academic research, is essentially the most similar between China Tourism Research Institute and academic institutions. All of its full-time researchers are scholars who have received formal research training. More than 90% of researchers have obtained doctoral degrees in disciplines and fields such as economics, management, business management, geography, anthropology, and architecture. At the same time, the China Tourism Research Institute has been approved to establish a postdoctoral research workstation, encouraging in-depth research on China's tourism industry after the postdoctoral program. As of 2018, seven postdoctoral researchers have left the station, and their research results cover areas such as sustainable tourism development, tourism impact, cultural heritage, policy and planning, and industry development. In addition, researchers from the China Tourism Research Institute have been actively applying for the National Social Science Foundation and the National Natural Science Foundation, and have been approved multiple times. They have published numerous academic papers, monographs, and practical tourism research and industry/project reports. They often hold or regularly attend academic conferences, where they exchange their research results, such as the Tourism Science Annual Meeting held in April and the Tourism Journal Annual Meeting held in October each year. In addition, the China Tourism Research Institute is also responsible for managing research projects established by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism/former National Tourism Administration, specifically involving the release of project guidelines, collection, selection, and funding of research plans (mostly from university scholars), and evaluation of the completion status of research projects. It is worth mentioning that in 2012, the China Tourism Research Institute also served as the editor in chief responsible for editing and publishing the "China Tourism Encyclopedia". Developing the China Tourism Research Institute into an "academic highland" has always been regarded as an important goal by the entire team. On the one hand, the China Tourism Research Institute regularly organizes academic activities and operates autonomously relative to the government, giving it the role and responsibility of a traditional university. On the other hand, its close connection with the government, coupled with the absence of student or degree granting courses, sets it apart from traditional academic institutions. However, "if the goal of becoming an 'academic highland' cannot be achieved, the China Tourism Research Institute will not be able to serve as a 'government think tank' and an 'industry think tank'" (Category IV Document, 2010). This dual identity has created a unique path for the development and training of researchers at the China Tourism Research Institute to achieve organizational goals. Unlike scholars in universities, researchers at the China Tourism Research Institute hope that their research findings can influence academia and government. They are guided to "break away from the old path of simply publishing journal articles, completing projects, or winning awards, and devote themselves more to high-quality research with long-term impact, and thus be remembered in the industry" (Type IV Document, 2012). Therefore, they critically reflected on the current academic evaluation and believed that a person's research results cannot be evaluated solely by numbers or indicators. A good scholar should learn to cultivate a sense of "tranquility" and "freedom" from the anxiety of quickly publishing results. Although clear goals are beneficial for career development, using the publication volume of achievements as a goal or benchmark is not conducive to academic development. Scholars should first enjoy the process of learning and research, viewing the publication of results as a byproduct of the research process rather than the ultimate goal. In order to effectively play its academic role, the China Tourism Research Institute has been widely committed to theoretical research and development for many years. Scholars from the China Tourism Research Institute have conducted interesting or beneficial explorations on the theoretical development of Chinese tourism in the new era in the production of local tourism knowledge. For example, in terms of theoretical exposition of contemporary Chinese tourism development, Dai Bin, Zhou Xiaoge, and Xia Shaoyan (2012) argued and answered some basic questions, such as why the tourism industry develops and what the ultimate goal of tourism development services is. The China Tourism Research Institute encourages researchers to "enter the practice of China's tourism development, truly understand its growth model, stages, system, and driving forces. Only based on this can contemporary tourism development theory be ultimately constructed" (Interviewee No. 9, CTA Senior Researcher, November 2017). From the perspective of the China Tourism Research Institute, an excellent and highly needed academic research should have a high theoretical level, be able to explain industry practice problems or phenomena, and be easily understood and accepted by readers and the public "(Interviewee No. 11, Senior Researcher at CTA Research Base, August 2018). However, this is also a shortcoming that the China Tourism Research Institute believes is still lacking: in the new era, China's tourism industry is flourishing. However, there are obvious shortcomings in explaining the deep integration of culture and tourism, the high-quality development of tourism that meets the diverse needs of the people, and the coordination and balance of the rights and interests of the government, enterprises, tourists, and residents in the development of contemporary tourism industry. For governments, scholars, and think tanks, these issues are strategic and urgent. They require a strong theoretical framework, not just academic journal articles. To be honest, our ability in this area is still relatively weak. Compared with scholars from universities, researchers from the China Tourism Research Institute believe that they are different and in a more advantageous position. Tourism think tanks affiliated with the government can usually convert industry research projects into national research fund projects, transform policy research into theoretical construction, and promote domestic research results internationally "(Category IV Document, 2014). 4.3 CTA, as an advocate of contemporary tourism industry, China Tourism Research Institute realizes its advocacy role through a series of activities, such as publishing articles in mass media; Develop and maintain official websites, blogs, and social media platforms to effectively, widely, and timely disseminate tourism development information to the public; Accept or be invited to participate in interviews on hot and emerging issues in tourism development; Educate and promote to the public through tourism lectures/workshops. During this process, the China Tourism Research Institute provides services to four different types of personnel. The first type is the submission of tourism economic operation and monitoring reports to governments at all levels; The second category is the tourism industry, which conducts market research and feasibility analysis on its new and existing businesses; The third category is the general public, including tourists, destination communities, media, and the general public; The fourth category includes governments, industries, and the general public in other countries or regions. To establish professional external communication skills, the China Tourism Research Institute has established close cooperative relationships with the media, especially new media. The media needs authentic and authoritative reporting content, while think tanks require extensive communication platforms. This has prompted the China Tourism Research Institute to maintain a positive and interactive cooperative relationship with (new) media. As long as our research is cutting-edge and useful to the industry and society, the media will always be with us. In order to enhance the readability of the research content of China Tourism Research Institute for the general public, we encourage researchers to write articles and exchange results in easy to understand language. In the context of big data, China Tourism Research Institute established the National Tourism Data Center in December 2015, highlighting the role of CTA as a knowledge broker or information disseminator. The Director of the Data Center is appointed by the President of the China Tourism Research Institute, and the position of Chief Statistician is established to specifically promote the collection, analysis, and application of tourism data. Without data support, the functions of think tanks will be nowhere to be found Therefore, colleagues need to muster the courage and intelligence to "build another CTA", which includes data and information construction such as "Tourism Literature Intelligence Center", "Tourism Monitoring and Warning Center", "Grey Literature", "Oral History", "Tourism Corpus", "Statistical Information and Index", "Tourism Impact Data", etc. Although annual statistical data collection and processing is routine work, timely release of irregular short-term (such as "Spring Festival Golden Week" and "National Day Golden Week") tourism data collection to the public is a specific and important task for data centers, with great time pressure. It is said that a graduate student majoring in tourism from a university in Zhejiang claimed to have the right to obtain such data for her academic research. Therefore, "the entire team must continuously analyze the data at the center day and night, so that it can be presented to the public as end-users like this student" (Interviewee 14, CTA Senior Researcher, 2019) 6) . Valuing the dissemination and efficiency of information to the public is a manifestation of China Tourism Research Institute fulfilling its functions as a public service institution. 4.5 In contrast to "academic and emotional", researchers at the China Tourism Research Institute possess both the identities of "traditional university scholars" and "official scholars or semi government officials" in terms of "truth and power". This dual identity is either implicit or present in their aspirations, ideologies, and work behaviors. Typically, the contradiction of "telling the truth to power" or "telling the truth for power" has always been rooted in the consciousness of traditional scholars. On the one hand, they pursue freedom and knowledge through rigorous research, but on the other hand, they are subject to government attention and restrictions when processing and transmitting information to the public. Like this contradiction, 'academic patriotism' is also a confusing yet powerful mentality. Under the influence of China's educational history and knowledge tradition, scholars who are recognized as the most influential are usually those who "contribute to the country" and "create knowledge or develop theories". This aspiration or noble spirit is also prominently imprinted in the organizational culture of the China Tourism Research Institute, where "making contributions to the country" is often referred to as the "original intention of think tank construction", and "serving the general public and the industry is making contributions to the country" (Interviewee No. 10, CTA Academic Committee Member, Professor, June 2018). Like scholars in universities, we also publish articles, apply for research projects, receive awards, and submit research results in order to advance. But unlike them, we have higher aspirations and more realistic goals. We live in the best era, and the China Tourism Research Institute is the best platform, for which we are extremely grateful. Our country, our people, and our industry need our knowledge and talent. What better contribution can a country make than knowledge? If our knowledge does not serve the country and the people, what is the use of publishing so many papers and books? Looking ahead to the future, we still need to make theoretical and practical contributions in the following areas: sharing high-quality life between hosts and guests in the community environment of tourist destinations; Revitalizing culture and heritage through new technologies to reposition the development of tourism industry; Carry out tourism governance through market supervision and regulatory construction; Using the "Chinese Dream" as a medium for international exchange and cooperation through tourism (Category 4 document, 2019 online materials). 5 Research Summary, Limitations, and Future Research This article presents the institutional ethnography of a tourism policy and development think tank located in one of the world's largest source markets/destinations. The various roles of this government think tank are reflected in many responsibilities or activities in terms of strategy and details, such as: (1) providing policy recommendations on tourism as a government agenda and national development strategy; (2) Carry out academic research and theoretical development to promote the development of this field and provide theoretical basis for the new era and new tourism industry; (3) Advocate tourism as a way to improve people's quality of life and well-being; (4) Publish tourism information or data to different end users and the public. Think tank researchers are rooted in and draw on China's academic culture and knowledge traditions. When dealing with the relationship between truth and power, they have a dual identity, carrying the ambition or sentiment of serving the country through academic research and professional knowledge (knowledge serving the country). In summary, this article has made contributions to the research of tourism theory and practice. Firstly, this study may be the first of its kind to focus on the knowledge mobilization role of think tanks in promoting tourism policies and development. The research findings can enrich recent discussions on tourism practices (Cooper, 2006; Martinez Martinez, et al., 2019; Xiao&Smith, 2007), as well as the overall research on think tanks (McGann&Weaver, 2017; Stone, 1996; Stone&Denham, 2004). In various scenarios of "knowledge in action" or "research in practice", think tanks and policy research institutions play multiple roles in interacting with the state, industry, and society, and in