At the end of the 2026 OTT Conference in Rabat, I asked participants to share what they were taking away. Not feedback about the event, venue, the food, the format or the logistics — we will collect that through the evaluation form — but reflections: What had stayed with them? What had shifted in their thinking? What would they take back to their organisations, their teams, their funders, their communities?
The answers were generous, honest and moving. They also confirmed something that Erica Schoder had put beautifully in her opening keynote: “the knowledge is in the room”. The knowledge we need “does not exist yet”; it is produced in the encounter between us. Conferences like this are not only spaces where people share what they already know. They are spaces where new knowledge, new connections, friendships and collaborations are created through the act of coming together.
This matters because the 2026 OTT Conference is not designed as a place where OTT offers answers to the sector. We create the space, convene the people, ask a few questions and provide a structure. But the real value lies in the interactions: in the formal sessions, yes, but also in the coffee breaks, dinners, corridor conversations, WhatsApp exchanges, difficult questions, uncomfortable admissions and moments of serendipity.
That was clear from the reflections shared in the room and later on LinkedIn. Again and again, participants came back to the same idea: what they valued most was not simply the content of a keynote or the practical tips from a session, but the community itself — its honesty, its energy, its capacity to listen, and its willingness to confront difficult questions together.
Encounters create knowledge
The first and most repeated message was about encounters.
Dianna H. English (CIGI) wrote that “community matters”, picking up Erica Schoder’s point that encounters matter. AI can summarise knowledge efficiently, she noted, but it is in encounters with each other that new insight becomes possible.
Jörn Eichhorn put this in another way. For him, the community itself offered a “second, equally rich layer of content and reflection”. Beyond the formal programme, the conference created opportunities to gain insight, context, wisdom and first-hand perspectives from people working across many different regions. The moments in between the sessions, he wrote, were just as valuable as the sessions themselves.
Kathleen Van Hove (ECDPM) described the conference as “invigorating” because of its numerous encounters, the safe space to share doubts and challenges, and the genuine desire among think tanks to work together and find ways to make a difference.
Atif Choudhury, who presented in one of the “Building a Better Community” sessions, said what stood out most was the generosity of the community. As he and his colleagues prepare to build a new think tank, the guidance, encouragement and thoughtful conversations with other think tank leaders left him “physically exhausted but mentally flying”.
In the closing round-up, Kareem Makhlouf (New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy) made a related point. He challenged the idea that success depends only on energy, integrity and intelligence. You also need luck, he said — or at least serendipity. Showing up matters. Meeting people matters. These encounters produce ideas for collaboration and opportunities that would not have emerged otherwise.
Jennifer Hecht’s reflection added another important dimension. She came with a group of current and past Mercator Stiftung partners: project partners, alumni and former colleagues. That, she said, was her personal highlight. Bringing people who may not otherwise have had access to the conference — or who may not even define themselves primarily as think tankers — adds creativity and new perspectives.
This is one of the reasons I think the community matters so much. A think tank conference that only talks about think tanks can sound self-indulgent from the outside. But, as Damien King (CAPRI) said in the closing session, “thinktankers talking about think tanks” is precisely the point when the work is difficult, underfunded, politically contested and often lonely. The gathering becomes a source of motivation — “like a catapult” or a “Wi-Fi extender” — that sends people back energised to continue.
Trust is not only about evidence
The second recurring message was about trust. But not trust in the abstract. Participants were asking: whose trust? Built how? Lost where? Rebuilt by whom? And for what purpose?
Dianna H. English (CIGI) picked up Denis Foretia’s challenge to ask whose trust matters. For funders, she wrote, due diligence should not be confused with the trust of the audiences that matter most: the communities affected by the changes we seek to create. She also drew on Hector Cardenas’ keynote to make another important point: being right is not enough. A good idea is necessary, but not sufficient; think tanks must also tell their story effectively and use creativity and communication tools to reach the audiences that matter.
Wessam El Beih (IDRC) pushed this further. The conference theme, “Think Tanks and Trust”, resonated beyond the sector because trust is not only a think tank problem. It reflects deeper fractures: between Global North and Global South, between international funders and local knowledge ecosystems, and across a fragmented international cooperation landscape. She also captured a crucial insight: generating knowledge alone is not influence. Rigorous analysis may still fail to move policy if trust is absent. Trust, she suggested, is about both capacity and intention: can you deliver, and are you doing it for the right reasons?
John Schwartz (Soapbox) connected trust to public service. In his reflection, he defined trust as keeping promises and demonstrating care for audiences. He asked: if knowledge creation is divorced from public service values, are we still talking about think tanks?
The Fundación Gaspar Casal shared a LinkedIn post that framed think tanks as bridges between citizens and politics: organisations that connect needs with data and recommendations in pursuit of the public interest. Their takeaway was that civil society work matters, and that sectoral collaboration strengthens legitimacy.
In the closing session, Sonia Jalfín (Socio Público) argued that think tankers must make room for feelings — not in the sense of becoming emotional, but in the sense of listening and understanding how perceptions shape our work. Trust is not built only by the arguments in a report, or by the rationality behind a recommendation. It is also built by openness, listening and attention to how people experience what we do.
This is a profound challenge for a sector that often imagines trust as a by-product of rigour. Rigour matters, of course, but these reflections suggest that trust is also relational, political and contextual. It depends on who we listen to, how we show up, how we communicate, who we are accountable to, and whether our audiences believe that we care.
AI is changing the work, but not replacing the encounter
AI was everywhere in the conversations, but the strongest takeaway was not simply that think tanks need to use AI more. It was that AI helps clarify what is distinctively valuable about think tanks.
Erica Schoder captured this in her keynote: AI is shining a light on where the value of think tanks actually lives. It is not only in the deliverable, but in what people produce together when they work through something difficult, with real stakes, and arrive at something they can live with.
John Schwartz noted that AI is already being operationalised across think tank communications, operations and research. But he also pointed back to Erica’s argument: human encounters remain central to the think tank offer, even in the age of AI.
Guilherme Sylos (IDIS) made the same point from another angle. AI is becoming unavoidable, he wrote on LinkedIn, but the real value of think tanks lies in the knowledge that emerges when people with real interests face difficult problems together.
Kolja Kukuk (Robert Bosch Foundation) said it even more directly: humans beat AI. AI can create knowledge on demand, but it cannot establish real societal change. For him, encounter and emotional interaction remain irreplaceable.
In the closing round-up, Goran Buldioski said that after Sonia Jalfin’s session, “agent” would no longer make him think of James Bond, but of the potential of AI agents to take on significant work within think tank settings. But even this reflection was immediately followed by a more human point: think tanks are bad places for people who want to fake it. “Only real people stay.”
AI may change our workflows, our products and our business models. It may help us summarise, translate, search, draft, visualise and automate. But the reflections from Rabat suggest that the future value of think tanks will depend on what AI cannot easily replicate: judgement, trust, legitimacy, courage, relationships, care, political understanding and the capacity to work through difficult problems with others.
We need to get closer to people and context
Several participants took away a renewed concern with context, proximity and legitimacy.
Kolja Kukuk argued that think tanks remain relevant — perhaps more than ever — but only if they engage more with local and rural communities and use accessible language. Their value as bridge-builders, he suggested, is immense because they can help rebuild eroding trust in institutions and government.
In the closing session, Promise Nduku (Elevate Evidence Hub) reflected on the difference between visibility and impact. Visibility means different things in different contexts. In some places, being seen online or photographed with policymakers can become performative. The real question is whether the work is making an impact. Promise took from Denis Foretia’s keynote the importance of seeking legitimacy within one’s own context, rather than looking for it externally.
Gregor Darmer (Global Perspectives) framed the conference as a space to ask how think tanks can remain credible and relevant, how trust is built, lost and rebuilt, and how think tanks should position themselves in rapidly changing political and social landscapes.
Tlegen Kuandykov (CAPS Unlock) described the conference as a chance to “zoom out” and remember why think tanks do what they do. His questions were simple and essential: how do we remain credible, reliable and trusted? What values guide our work? How do we stay creative, optimistic and connected in a messy world?
These are not abstract questions. They are organisational questions, political questions and, ultimately, ethical questions. Think tanks cannot rely only on formal independence, technical quality or international validation. They have to earn relevance and legitimacy in the contexts in which they work.
Funding, pressure and adaptation are shaping what think tanks can do
Funding appeared again and again, not as a narrow operational concern, but as a condition that shapes the possibilities for knowledge work.
Sharmagh Sakounts (APRI Armenia) said that across sectors, regions and continents, what unites think tanks is the struggle with funding. She called – and offered to convene – a community of practice for think tank fundraisers.
Audrey-Anne de Ubeda (FERDI) highlighted alternative funding models as one of the areas the conference created space to discuss, alongside organisational culture, regional think tanks, think tank–university collaborations and AI. She described the conference as a rare opportunity to pause and ask what think tanks really do, how they work, what they struggle with and what they want to become.
Wessam El Beih wrote that the global knowledge ecosystem is under pressure not only from funding volatility, but from political environments that shape what research is even possible to produce. Evidence use, she argued, is becoming political, not neutral. I think the OTT community agrees: there is nothing neutral about evidence.
Sonia Jalfin’s closing reflection brought this down to the level of organisational choices. She had heard, in sessions and informal conversations, how organisations are reframing what they do: how in Europe the word advocacy has become difficult; how, in one Latin American example, a political studies department was closed or repackaged because it had become dangerous; how think tanks repackage work to secure business support. She recognised the creativity and adaptability involved, but asked a darker question: what is lost in these adaptations? When does reframing become self-censorship?
Guilherme Sylos also noted that corridor conversations put his own context in perspective: in some Global South countries, civil society organisations face real persecution, going well beyond the fiscal challenges familiar in Brazil.
Igor Mitchnik (Austausch e.V.) connected these pressures to a wider moment: AI, tech-oligarchic actors, funding cuts, war, authoritarian forces targeting democracies, and deepening trust deficits towards governments and within constituencies. What struck him was that organisations from very different contexts face similar headaches. His conclusion was that NGOs, think tanks and grassroots movements can no longer do this alone; they need to adapt and collaborate beyond familiar circles, including with the private sector.
This is one of the clearest signals from the conference. Funding is not only about money. It affects language, risk, partnerships, topics, legitimacy and courage. It determines not only whether think tanks survive, but what kind of work they feel able to do.
Organisational culture is no longer a side issue
Another strong message was that think tanks need to look inward.
Kolja Kukuk highlighted cultural change as one of his main takeaways. True impact, he wrote, requires inner evolution: think tanks must adapt their internal structures and foster agile learning cultures. He saw this reflected in the F@ck Up Night, which created space to share and learn from failure, and in the Unpopular Opinion Sing-Along, which challenged conventional wisdom in an unconventional format.
Sonja Stojanovic Gajic described the conference as a gift to herself because it gives her ideas that stay with her throughout the year and allows her to meet people who care deeply about public problems and are willing to share openly across contexts and continents. She also hosted a workshop on organisational culture, exploring how the invisible currents within teams can help organisations navigate uncertainty — or break them.
Audrey-Anne de Ubeda valued the conference because it allowed think tanks to be honest about their challenges, not just their achievements.
Kathleen Van Hove also highlighted the safe space to share doubts and challenges, and to look for new approaches to deal with them.
In the closing round-up, Goran Buldioski said that what stayed with him was not factual but emotional: think tanks are not places where people can easily fake commitment. People who do research have alternatives. If they stay in think tanks, it is because they believe in the work.
This is an important reminder. The future of think tanks will not be decided only by strategy documents, funding models or communications plans. It will also depend on culture: whether organisations can learn, adapt, admit failure, care for their people, share power, and remain honest about the tensions they face.
Collaboration is essential, but still hard
The conference produced many calls for collaboration, but also a recognition that collaboration is easier to invoke than to practise.
Annapoorna Ravichander, attending the conference for the ninth time, said she always returns rejuvenated and with new ideas, some of which she is able to execute and others not. But she also noted that while think tanks talk constantly about alliances, partnerships and networking, they often do not know how to carry them forward.
Aidan Muller highlighted the C4ADS presentation as one of the best he had seen on partnerships. What made the partnership successful, in his view, was that C4ADS did not let ego get in the way. They were willing to step back and let others benefit from their work.
John Schwartz also pointed to collaboration as crucial because think tanks vary widely in their contexts and strengths. He referred to a coalition of think tanks that brought together different research capabilities and audiences, as well as conversations on regional collaborations with business to grow impact.
Guilherme Sylos, reflecting on a philanthropy session, highlighted the importance of coalitions, patience and trust built over time when pursuing regulatory reform.
In the closing session Mario Picon (Governance Action Hub) said that what he heard in the conference was resilience, creativity and commitment. But he also asked how we carry the energy and connections forward between conferences. Collaboration on complex challenges, he suggested, must also acknowledge power and politics within the think tank world itself.
This is the challenge for OTT as much as for everyone else. The conference can create encounters. It can make serendipity more likely. It can open doors. But the work of collaboration must continue after people return home.
Women, diversity and leadership are central to legitimacy
One of the most important developments around the conference was the launch of the Women in Think Tanks Network, promoted by the Mawazo Institute and OTT.
The Mawazo Institute described it as a global community committed to advancing women’s visibility and influence in policy and research spaces. The network was launched at a founding session in Rabat and brought together organisations from across regions.
The Okwelians framed their participation as part of a commitment to gender equity beyond borders. The network, they wrote, aims to strengthen women’s presence, visibility and influence in research organisations and decision-making spaces.
Florencia Rubiolo (Insight21) argued that the Women in Think Tanks Network represents more than a new space for coordination. It expresses the need to build knowledge communities that are more diverse, collaborative and prepared to address increasingly complex and interdependent public challenges. In a context marked by polarisation, disinformation and institutional distrust, diverse leadership is not a complementary conversation; it is part of the legitimacy, sustainability and future impact of institutions that produce evidence and ideas for decision-making.
The Fundación Gaspar Casal also highlighted participation in the women leaders’ group as an essential initiative to promote women’s leadership in the sector.
In the closing session, Promise Nduku reflected on attending the Women in Think Tanks convening and said plainly that men in this space “can do better”. He said that some of what he heard made him feel embarrassed that these issues persist in 2026, but he also described it as a great learning opportunity.
Emma Woodford (EPC) broadened the point: the issue is not only women, but inequalities and intersectionality. It is also about different ways of leading think tanks, and about resilience, care and empathy across regions and contexts.
These reflections make clear that the question of women in think tanks is not a side agenda. It is about power, legitimacy, organisational culture, knowledge production and the future of the sector.
Students and younger think tankers should not be forgotten
Another strong message came from the student-led think tank session.
In the closing round-up, student-led think tank leader Sonja Grünbauer (EPIS Think Tank) made a simple request: do not forget us. If think tanks need people, opinions, new minds or new ideas, they should think about students. There are student-led think tanks and student initiatives ready to collaborate.
Sonja Stojanovic Gajic, reflecting on the same session, said her “aha moment” was that instead of doing more organisational consultancy, she might simply tell people to hire student-led think tanks to teach them how to work with unpredictability, motivate people, create institutional knowledge and build community. She thought they were more adaptable.
Jennifer Hecht also mentioned learning more about OTT’s student-led think tank initiative as one of the things that stood out from the conference.
For me, this was one of the most encouraging signals. Student-led think tanks are not simply a pipeline for future professionals. They are already producing ideas, organising communities and experimenting with ways of working that more established think tanks could learn from. Collaborating with them — through peer review, methods support, events or joint initiatives — can be good for them, but also good for the wider ecosystem.
Our Building for the Future initiative that supports student-led think tanks is one of my favourite projects!
The conference renewed people’s sense of purpose
Finally, many participants described the conference as a source of renewal.
Tlegen Kuandykov wrote that the conference helped him zoom out and remember why think tanks do what they do. He felt the pulse of the global think tank community.
Judith L. Katz (Center for Law, Energy & the Environment) wrote that she was inspired by the thought leadership and friendliness she encountered, and wanted to pass on what she had learned from the scholars, teachers and humanists she met.
Sonja Stojanovic Gajic said the conference gives her ideas that stay with her throughout the year.
Atif Choudhury left exhausted but energised.
In the closing round-up, Damien King (CAPRI) said he takes many bits of knowledge from the conference, but what he takes most is motivation. In a sector marked by funding frustrations, limited influence, late visas and the constant reminder that advice is not influence, the conference helps people keep going. I must mention that Damien was stuck in transit for days but did not give up and joined us for a veru active last day of the Conferenec!
We often focus on what think tanks produce: reports, policy briefs, events, recommendations, media appearances. But behind all of that are people who must navigate pressure, uncertainty, politics, funders, teams, boards, governments and audiences. They need ideas but they also need courage, companionship and energy.
What these takeaways tell us
Taken together, these reflections say something important about where think tanks are.
The sector is not only asking how to be more influential. It is asking how to be trusted, how to be useful, how to remain legitimate, how to adapt without losing itself, how to collaborate without ego, how to use AI without forgetting people, how to build internal cultures that can withstand pressure, how to make room for women and younger think tankers, and how to stay close to the communities that matter.
These are not small questions. They cannot be answered by OTT alone, or by one keynote, one report or one conference. But they can be worked through by a community.
And that is what I saw in Rabat.
The knowledge was in the room — not because every participant arrived with the answers, but because they were willing to produce them together.