As discussions at the 2026 OTT Conference explored the future of trust, evidence and policy influence in an increasingly fragmented world, Rosa Balfour’s keynote reflected on a question that has become more urgent than ever: do think tanks still matter? Drawing on her experience in international affairs and European policy research, she examined the pressures reshaping the sector — from democratic backsliding and geopolitical upheaval to technological disruption and declining public trust — while making the case for think tanks as essential bridges between policymakers and society.
Opening with humour, Rosa began her 2026 OTT Conference keynote by asking how many participants had experienced the familiar situation of family members not fully understanding what think tank professionals actually do. While the comment drew laughter from the audience, it also introduced a more serious reflection on the purpose and responsibility of think tanks today.
For much of their career, Rosa explained, think tank work had appealed because it combined intellectual curiosity, international engagement, research, and policy relevance without the isolation of academia. Over time, however, that understanding changed.
Think tanks, she argued, are not simply research organisations or policy commentators. They are critical institutions connecting policymakers and wider publics at a moment when trust in expertise, democratic institutions, and shared facts is increasingly fragile.
A watershed moment for trust in expertise
Rosa traced this shift in thinking back to two major political events in 2016: the Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom and the election of Donald Trump in the United States. For her — a European researcher working on European integration, foreign policy, and transatlantic cooperation — both moments represented profound personal and professional ruptures.
At the time, she was working at the German Marshall Fund, an institution strongly committed to international cooperation and transatlantic relations. The success of political movements openly sceptical of experts, multilateralism, and evidence-based policymaking forced a difficult reassessment. “What is the purpose of my work?” Rosa recalled asking. She revisited emblematic moments from that period, including the claim by British politician Michael Gove that “people are fed up with experts” and the Trump administration’s references to “alternative facts”. Nearly a decade later, Rosa argued, the environment has become even more challenging.
The contemporary information space increasingly resembles a world where “everything is possible and nothing is true” — a dynamic that rewards disinformation, political polarisation, and powerful actors capable of manipulating fragmented information ecosystems. This environment poses profound challenges for think tanks whose work depends on evidence, institutional credibility, and public trust.
Four structural challenges facing think tanks
Rosa identified four major systemic pressures reshaping the environment in which think tanks operate.
The first concerns the information ecosystem itself. Technological transformations, particularly the rise of social media platforms and artificial intelligence, have disrupted traditional systems through which knowledge is organised, verified, and transmitted. Established gatekeepers — including universities, media institutions, and expert communities — are under growing pressure. While these transformations create opportunities for wider participation and new forms of communication, they have also contributed to declining trust in governments, democratic institutions, journalism, and expertise more broadly.
The second challenge is political. Technological change is never politically neutral. Digital infrastructures are shaped by ownership models, business incentives, and geopolitical competition. Referencing Anu Bradford’s concept of competing “digital empires”, Rosa contrasted the United States’ market-driven approach, China’s state-centred model, and Europe’s rights-based regulatory vision. At the same time, these technological shifts are unfolding during a broader democratic recession characterised by growing authoritarianism, weakening democratic norms, and increasing political polarisation.
The third challenge concerns funding. Governments and donors across many countries are reallocating resources toward security and defence priorities, creating difficult trade-offs for sectors traditionally associated with think tank work, including diplomacy, education, international development, and social policy. Large-scale reductions in foreign aid and international cooperation funding are already reshaping the operating environment for many policy research institutions. While these pressures may encourage institutional innovation and creativity, they also generate significant instability and short-term uncertainty.
The fourth challenge is geopolitical upheaval. Rosa described a world simultaneously confronting multiple crises: armed conflicts, climate change, technological competition, and the accelerating race around artificial intelligence. For international affairs think tanks in particular, these developments create constant pressure to provide immediate commentary on rapidly unfolding events, often at the expense of slower and more in-depth analysis.
Rosa argued that think tanks must become better at connecting global developments with domestic political dynamics and public concerns, rather than treating international affairs as detached from citizens’ everyday realities.
Why think tanks matter more than ever
Despite these mounting pressures, Rosa insisted that the current environment strengthens rather than weakens the case for think tanks. In periods of uncertainty and polarisation, societies need institutions capable of sustaining non-partisan, evidence-based, and policy-relevant debate. But fulfilling that role requires more than simply producing research.
In her keynote, Rosa reflected on how her own response to the political shocks of 2016 began with an introspective process focused on institutional identity and values. Rather than chasing funding opportunities or reacting constantly to external pressures, she argued that think tanks need “moral clarity” about who they are, what they stand for, and what kinds of work genuinely align with their mission. This clarity creates the ethical and strategic foundation necessary for making difficult institutional decisions. It also allows organisations to pursue funding and partnerships that reinforce rather than dilute their core identity.
Importantly, she linked authenticity with institutional credibility. In highly polarised environments, audiences increasingly respond to organisations that appear genuine, principled, and transparent about their values and methods.
Rosa also reflected on the importance of self-doubt. Rather than assuming that established expert communities are always correct, think tanks should remain willing to interrogate their own assumptions and seriously consider why political challengers or dissatisfied publics may hold views that differ from institutional consensus.
“What if the challenger actually has a point?”
Building communities, foresight, and intellectual bridges
Moving from diagnosis to practice, Rosa’s keynote proposed several areas where think tanks should focus their efforts.
The first was foresight and long-term planning. Institutions need to invest more seriously in scenario-building, contingency planning, and strategic thinking about how changing political and technological environments may affect their work. This includes planning not only research agendas, but also staffing structures, financial sustainability, and institutional resilience.
The second priority involved building stronger communities. Drawing on discussions throughout the conference, Rosa distinguished between professional networks and genuine communities. Communities create safer spaces where people can express uncertainty, challenge assumptions, and engage in meaningful intellectual cross-pollination across disciplines, geographies, and methodologies. Such spaces are essential for helping think tanks understand increasingly complex policy problems that cannot be addressed through isolated expertise alone.
She also emphasised the need to better connect domestic politics with international affairs. Too often, international relations debates treat domestic political dynamics as secondary considerations rather than central explanatory factors. Understanding why societies respond to globalisation, conflict, or technological change in particular ways requires much deeper engagement with domestic political realities.
Think tanks as a bridge between policymakers and society
Rosa concluded by returning to the changing responsibilities of think tanks. Working in a think tank is not simply intellectually stimulating or professionally rewarding. It is also a public responsibility.
Think tanks occupy a crucial position between policymakers facing growing pressure and societies increasingly distrustful of institutions and expertise. This means think tanks must become better translators between policy processes and public understanding. Institutions cannot rely solely on technical language, acronyms, or insider policy debates. They must communicate policy choices and political trade-offs in ways that broader audiences can understand and relate to.
She therefore called on think tanks to move beyond their traditional comfort zones and engage more directly with citizens and public debate. At a time of political fragmentation and institutional distrust, think tanks have an important role not only in producing evidence, but also in helping democratic societies navigate uncertainty more thoughtfully.
The session closed with a reminder that think tanks remain uniquely positioned to help policymakers make better decisions — and perhaps, as Rosa put it with characteristic humour, “help decision-makers not screw up.”