In this paper, we propose to analyse and to discuss the emergence of Portuguese think tanks, their organization, characteristics and affirmation process in the public sphere, and their role in shaping Portuguese education policy. Existing categorisations (e.g., Hart & Vromen, 2008; McGann & Weaver, 2000; Medvetz, 2012) commonly distinguish between academic, government, advocacy, contract, and policy types/political party. We understand, here, the term think tank as suggested by Thompson, Savage and Lingard (2015), manifesting a variety of different characteristics and attributes that are constantly evolving in response to changing political conditions. Our analysis frames the work of Portuguese think tanks in relation to the change in governance structures, that is, considering that policy processes involve new ways of thinking about the production and distribution of knowledge, and new actors, including private actors (Hogan , Sellar, & Lingard, 2015; Robertson & Dale, 2008), whose presence would be justified by the opportunities created by new forms of outsourcing, contracting and the setting up of public-private partnerships, that is, the privatization of politics. In this context, the network has been pointed out by several authors (e.g., Menashy & Verger, 2019; Olmedo, 2013; Shiroma, 2013) as an adequate conceptual device to represent the major ongoing changes in the governance of education, and an analysis technique able to visually portray the network of relations of these new policy communities that, among other key actors, include experts, philanthropists, consultants, think tanks and foundations. As Menashy and Verger (2019) pointed out:

The concept of networks is both theoretical and analytical, allowing us to understand major ongoing changes in the governance of education. Networks – conceived as sets of relationships between political, economic and/or social actors – are key in understanding how current policies are formulated and delivered. (Menashy & Verger, 2019, p.127)

On the other hand, as noted by Verger, Fontdevila and Zancajo (2016), the space occupied in the definition of policies by non-state actors has been captured by different concepts: para-political sphere, heterarchies, where processes of decision making are shared at different instances by old and new actors (Olmedo, 2013), or, political subsystem, including public and private actors, in addition to policy analysts, researchers and journalists, usually associated with the creation and/or dissemination of educational policy ideas.

Regarding the think tanks' capacity for political influence, Stone (2000) argued that their ability to determine the political agenda, if any, is intangible while, on the other hand, Ball and Exely (2010), suggested that what happens is, perhaps, a process of friction and infiltration, with versions or traces of ideas that end up being supported in official policy documents.

In this paper, we situate the capacity of Portuguese think tanks to influence the setting of the education policy within the framework of the communication model proposed by Habermas (1997, 2006); model mediated by a reticulated structure (the public sphere), that links a decision-making centre (where the parliamentary system and the political actors are included, both as co-authors and receivers of public opinions) and a periphery with a capacity to exert influence. The periphery, in turn, branches itself into multiple partial public spheres, which overlap and are connected by the porosity of their limits, specialised by their functional content and distributed through levels according to, and simultaneously, density, range of communication produced by the actors and by the organisational complexity that is intrinsic to them (Habermas, 1997, 2006).

The methodological approach included the analysis of social networks to map the relationships between the actors, and the content analysis of information collected from different institutional sources (e.g., websites, blogs, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube) for better understanding the context and the meaning of those relationships. Other sources of public access (e.g., personal websites, blogs, curricula vitae) were also searched to collect additional information on the professional trajectory of the actors, affiliations with public and private organizations (e.g., universities, research centers, foundations, companies), political parties and presence in the Portuguese media. While social networks analysis seeks to measure the patterns of interactions and explore their structure, approaches within the framework of network ethnography seek to give greater relevance to the form and content of policy relations, through a combination of social network analysis tools with the more traditional methods of ethnography (see, for example, Howard, 2002; Olmedo, 2014; Shiroma 2014). In this Conference we will present the findings of our research which focused on Iniciativa Educação, formally established in 2019. Iniciativa Educação currently develops the Ser Pro Program, on which we center our analysis, aiming to contribute to improve the quality of education and training in Portugal, promoting the integration of young people in the School and reducing the deficit of specialized technicians.

The Iniciativa Educação is led by a former Minister of Education and Science and includes in the team other former members of government and politicians, experts with links, among others, to public and private higher education institutions in Portugal and in Europe and the United States of America, research centers, associations (e.g., EPIS - Entrepreneurs for Social Inclusion), including disciplinary scientific associations (e.g., Portuguese Mathematical Society), and organizations (e.g., World Bank, Unesco, OECD) and international networks (e.g., Cochrane network). In addition, for the development the Ser Pro Program, the Iniciativa Educação established partnerships with public and non-commercial organisations (e.g., schools, municipalities), private companies and universities, including the Lusófona University of Porto. Regarding the findings, we would highlight, in line with the research work carried out in Portugal (Viseu & Carvalho, 2018) and other countries (e.g., Hart & Vromen, 2008; Thompson, Savage, & Lingard, 2015) the relevance that Portuguese think tanks have been assuming in the public discussion about educational policies, and the potential of network ethnography for mapping the actors of Iniciativa Educação and their relations, in the sense pointed out by Shiroma (2013) that: Allow us to see the capillary action of the networks and the multiple links and interests connecting the actors. The mapping of the relationships of partnership, clients, suppliers, sponsors and donors (…) helps (…) in understanding the complex relationships between government, civil society and business. (Shiroma, 2013, p.341)

Ball, S., & Exley, S. (2010). Making policy with ‘good ideas’: Policy networks and the ‘intellectuals’ of New Labour. Journal of Education Policy, 25(2), 151-169 Hart, P., & Vromen, A. (2008). A new era for think tanks in public policy? International trends, Australian realities. The Australian Journal of Public Administration, 67(2), 135-148. Habermas, J. (1997). Droit et démocratie. Entre faits et normes. Paris: Gallimard, 1997. Habermas, J. (2006). Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication Theory, 16(4), 411-426. Hogan, A., Sellar, S., & Lingard, B. (2015). Commercialising comparison: Pearson puts the TLC in soft capitalism. Journal of Education Policy. doi:10.1080/02680939.2015.1112922 Howard, P. (2002). Network ethnography and the hypermedia organization: New media, new organizations, new methods. New Media Society, 4(4), 550-574. Olmedo, A. (2013). From England with love…ARK, heterarchies and global ‘philantropic governance’. Journal of Education Policy, 29(5), 575-597. McGann, J., & Weaver, R. (2000). Think tanks and civil societies: Catalysts for ideas and action. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishing. Medvetz, T. (2012). Think tanks in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Menashy, F., & Verger, A. (2019). The value of network analysis for the study of global education policy. Key concepts and methods. In R. Gorur, S. Sellar, & G. Steiner-Khamsi (Eds.), Comparative methodology in the era of big data and global networks (pp. 117-131). London: Routledge. Robertson, S., & Dale, R. (2008). Making Europe: State, space, strategy and subjectivities. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 6(3), 203-206. Shiroma, E. O. (2013). Networks in action: New actors and practices in education policy in Brazil. Journal of Education Policy, (29)3. 323-348. Stone, D. (2000). Private authority, scholarly legitimacy and political credibility: Think tanks and informal diplomacy. In G. Higgott, G. Underhill and A. Bieler (Eds.), Non state actors and authority in the global system (211-225). London: Routledge. Thompson, G., Savage, G., & Lingard, B. (2015). Introduction. Think tanks, edu-businesses and education policy: Issues of evidence, expertise and influence. Australian Educational Researcher, 43(1), 1-13. Van Zanten, A. (2004). Les politiques d’éducation. Paris: PUF. Verger, A., Fontdevila, C., & Zancajo, A. (2016). The privatization of education: A Political economy of global education reform. New York: Teachers College. Viseu, S., & Carvalho, L. M. (2018). Think tanks, policy networks and education governance: The rising of new intra-national spaces of policy in Portugal. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(108). doi:10.14507/epaa.26.3664