Over the past few weeks, I have spent a lot of time inside the Open Think Tank Directory. Not just browsing it as a user, but working directly with the data: cleaning entries, checking inconsistencies, and looking closely at how organisations are tagged across regions and themes.
At some point, I realised I was no longer merely analysing the data. I was asking a different question. How did we end up with a dataset this large, this diverse, and uneven in some places? Working closely with the Directory today, understanding its origins feels important, not only to make sense of what I see on my screen, but also to think more clearly about what the Directory should become next.
A modest and unplanned beginning
The Open Think Tank Directory did not begin as a large-scale data infrastructure project. Its origins were much more modest and, in many ways, accidental.
The earliest roots of the directory can be traced back to the last few weeks of the On Think Tanks Exchange, an initiative that encouraged exchanges among think tanks across regions. The initiative, funded by the Think Tank Initiative (IDRC), the Think Tank Fund (Open Society Foundations) and the Indonesian Knowledge Sector Initiative (Australian DFAT), aimed to foster relationships and support collaboration in research projects, institutional development, and policy-influencing efforts. The Exchange involved only 10 think tankers from 9 countries across Latin America, Europe, and Southeast Asia. It was small, highly relational, and focused on people rather than data.
When that project came to an end, a small amount of funding from the Open Society Foundations remained. Rather than being allocated elsewhere, it was used to build a very simple database on the On Think Tanks website. The goal was straightforward: to create a basic structure that could host publicly available information about think tanks in a more organised and transparent way.
At that time, one of our main objectives was to incentivise more research on think tanks; more data would certainly help. But as relationships developed and exchanges increased, a practical need emerged. Keeping track of who was involved, where they worked, and what they focused on.
Growing through projects and partnerships
What followed was not a linear expansion, but a gradual layering of information driven by collaboration. Over the years, OTT has been commissioned to conduct multiple mapping exercises, each addressing a specific partner question.
The first of these projects, commissioned by the Konrad-Adenauer Foundation’s Regional Programme Energy Security and Climate Change in Latin America (EKLA), focused on think tanks working on climate and energy in the region. Others examined think tanks working across global thematic priorities. UNICEF funded a particularly detailed scoping of organisations working on children and adolescents in their priority regions, including information about organisational skills and areas of expertise. The Robert Bosch Stiftung supported a global scoping of organisations focusing on migration, peace and security, inequality, and environmental issues.
Later, larger mapping exercises for the Gates Foundation covered think tanks across Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. USAID also supported the scoping of think tank data in the United States and Panama. Each project generated its own dataset and report. Importantly, much of that information did not disappear once the project ended. Instead, it was absorbed into the directory, expanding both its scope and depth.
Working through the data today, these layers are clearly visible. Some themes and regions are richly populated with unusually detailed organisational profiles, while others still lack representation. These patterns are not random. They reflect the questions our funders and partners asked at specific moments in time.
Long-term support from the Hewlett Foundation since 2015, and later from Mercator Stiftung and Robert Bosch Stiftung, has been critical to On Think Tanks’ ability to sustain the directory, fill gaps, improve data quality, and treat it as a public resource.
From commissioned work to a public resource
Many of the projects that fed into the directory were commissioned as consultancy work. Yet, instead of remaining closed or time-bound, much of that data was reintegrated into an open, publicly accessible platform.
This reflects a broader commitment within On Think Tanks to treat knowledge generated through specific projects as a contribution to a shared public resource whenever possible. Over time, this approach transformed the directory into something larger than the sum of its parts. Today, it features public information for close to 4,000 policy research organisations worldwide and supports transparency and accessibility across the sector. It is used by researchers, funders, practitioners, and think tanks themselves to better understand the global policy research landscape.
As the directory became more structured and more visible, its growth could no longer rely solely on new projects and mapping exercises. To complement the data already collected, On Think Tanks began running dedicated campaigns and open calls, inviting think tanks to join the directory and to review and update their public profiles. These efforts helped expand coverage while giving organisations greater agency over how they were represented.
At the same time, maintaining data quality required additional work behind the scenes. Fieldworkers were contracted to review individual entries, verify publicly available information, and update organisational profiles. This helped ensure the directory remained accurate, consistent, and reliable.
This marked an important shift. The directory was no longer just growing. It was being actively stewarded.
Working with the data today, I am constantly reminded that what looks like a single dataset is, in fact, the product of many hands, many questions, and many moments of collaboration.
A directory shaped by real questions and mapping efforts
The directory is not the product of a single, perfectly designed taxonomy applied uniformly across the world. It is the cumulative result of many practical efforts to understand and support the think tank sector under different conditions and priorities.
As a researcher, this is what makes the dataset particularly interesting. It is not just a list of organisations. It is a record of how the sector has been studied, funded, and engaged with over time. The diversity, and sometimes the unevenness, of the data tells a story about the evolution of the field itself.
And the Directory is only one aspect of the effort to map the think tank landscape. The OTT blog, the OTT Talks series, the OTT Conference, our Building for the Future Initiative, and the 100 Think Tanks to Watch help scout for new organisations, business models, and broader trends.
Why updating the directory now is a shared task
Today, the Open Think Tank Directory serves as the foundation for much of our work. It provides the global baseline that allows us to design the State of the Sector Report Survey, supports regional and thematic mappings, and helps organisations identify peers and potential partners. It plays a central role in how the think tank community is represented and understood globally.
The Directory is also a major online traffic generator for many think tanks globally. In a world where think tanks struggle to secure funding from new funders and potential partners, the Open Think Tank Directory offers a low-cost solution.
Yet the directory has reached a point where it can no longer be sustained solely through periodic mapping exercises, commissioned projects, or behind-the-scenes data cleaning. The same collaborative process that allowed it to grow now calls for a more intentional model of care and upkeep. This is why we are increasingly inviting think tanks to review, update, or create their own profiles.
When organisations update their information, they improve the quality of the data that feeds into sector-wide analysis, increase their visibility within the global think tank ecosystem, and help ensure that their context, particularly in under-documented regions and themes, is properly reflected.
Understanding how the Open Think Tank Directory came to be helps clarify what is being asked now. What began as a modest spreadsheet has evolved into shared sector infrastructure.