At the OTT Conference in May 2023, one theme explored was the think tank ‘independence’ and how it is constructed and maintained. In 2023, the conference was hosted by Chatham House, one of the oldest think tanks in the world and one that prides itself on its long-standing tradition of independent thinking.
What does ‘independence’ mean in relation to think tanks, especially in this age of crisis of expertise and threats to academic freedom? According to the IPSOS ‘Broken-System sentiment’, a 28-country survey, many citizens today believe that experts do not understand the lives of ordinary people and what they need.
To assist the discussion at the OTT Conference 2023, a mini-survey was conducted immediately prior to the panel session on “Credibility construction: A de-politicised think tank industry?” to gauge how participants viewed the topic. This blogpost provides a short report on the survey findings.
The general theme of the session was to address what was represented to be a social ‘myth’ of think tank independence. While the Anglo-American origins of the think tank organisation over a century ago may have been of a civil society-based, legally and politically independent body engaged in dispassionate evidence gathering and analysis for policy development, the subsequent worldwide spread of think tanks in the past 40 years has upended this image as unreal and disconnected from the extensive networks and diverse strategies into the policy world that think tanks everywhere have developed.
Nor does this old-fashioned image account for the large number of government-sponsored think tanks or those think tanks established in authoritarian or illiberal political regimes. Rather than non-governmental, or quasi-independent, many think tanks are mostly ‘near-governmental’. However, this situation poses challenges now that more than half of the population lives under illiberal regimes or in countries in the process of democratic backsliding.
Even so, the think tank sector continues to promote this (questionable) depoliticised image. While it is a perennial concern of think tanks to meet high standards, perceptions of both ‘independence’ and ‘credibility’ are subjective within the think tank community as well as outside among the users and consumers of their policy analytic work. Yet, as adept political communicators, think tanks also tend to be good at projecting a common identity of the ‘sector’ as a whole. That is, the ideal image of these organisations – the myth of think tanks – that can overwrite the oftentimes individual organisational realities of partisanship and politicisation on the one hand, or time, staffing and other resource constraints that lead to poor and hasty research outputs on the other.
The probable effects of their depoliticisation are that, collectively, think tanks find it increasingly difficult to live up to this ideal. Indeed, the discussion in the panel session indicated a marked preference not to conflate ‘independence’ with ‘credibility’ and that the latter does not necessarily require the former in all circumstances. Relatedly, another potential effect is that a depoliticised think tank sector in any country could underwrite policy stability and paradigm maintenance more so than promote reform or policy innovation.
The topic of the session was designed to be counter-intuitive to the general conference theme of ‘uncertainty’. That is, by focusing on how think tanks create ‘certainty’ about their socio-political status as providers of independent policy analysis notwithstanding wider contexts of policy flux and resource constraints they face.
Think tanks have a vested interest in the de-politicization of their (collective) image. Why? It helps to legitimate their role in policy debates as neutral and credible analysis providers. As the Think Tank State of the Sector 2023 reveals, almost half of the surveyed think tanks believe that it is getting harder to operate.
The survey
We asked OTT participants to spend 2-3 minutes responding to four questions, anonymously, prior to the start of the panel session. This session was scheduled for the late afternoon of the first day of the conference. The majority of the attendees (53%) came from Western and Northern Europe (Italy, the UK, Germany, Belgium, and Denmark), followed by 19% from Latin America and the Caribbean (Peru, Mexico, Argentina and Brazil), 14% from USA and Canada, 8% from Africa (South Africa and Senegal) and 6% from Asia (China and India).
There were 18 responses to the survey, although the room held closer to 25 participants including the 4 panellists. Unsurprisingly, most respondents worked in a think tank, three people came from higher education institutions, and a single representative each came from a national funding agency and a philanthropic body. Nobody from the government or from the media participated in the session. Instead, the survey respondents reflected primarily the ‘think tank sector’ which overwhelmingly populated the conference.
The three remaining questions sought to elicit views on the factors that might contribute to creating and sustaining independence, including the challenges of striking a balance with the other kinds of pressures on think tanks for organisational sustainability.
What did the results tell us (even with a small sample)? In summary, ‘research quality’ and a think tank’s reputation for sound methodological inquiry are highly valued among those within the think tank community, more so than values of independence and free thinking or political neutrality.
Responses to the second question revealed that 70%, or 12 people, considered that it was ‘sometimes’ feasible for a think tank to make “trade-offs” between financial stability and its organisational sustainability on the one hand, for the sake of independence and free thinking on the other.
At the extremes, one person indicated ‘never’ while 2 other people considered it ‘frequently’ possible to make such trade-offs. These responses are indicative only of an abstract situation even if respondents might have been recalling experience from their own professional context. However, to speculate and be suggestive of what such responses might mean, we can point to:
- Different perspectives on the mission and ideal of the think tank when accepting ‘tied’ funding.
- Different political cultural values on ‘independence’.
- Occasionally think tanks have forgone the usual standards of free thinking and intellectual autonomy to preserve jobs, revenue flow or good standing with patrons and clients.
The third question was intended to ascertain whether a clear ideological or normative position of a think tank, including its political leanings, could negatively impact the reputation of a think tank for ‘sound methodological inquiry’.
Only a small proportion, 18% or 3 people indicated that such characteristics would frequently undermine the reputation of a think tank reputation for ‘sound methodological inquiry’. However, 10 people (59%) considered that this knock to reputation did happen sometimes. No one who responded was of the view that reputation loss never happened.
The fourth question asked respondents to focus on how think tanks create credibility and maintain their reputation by asking them to choose the three most important factors from seven different options. ‘Research quality’ was overwhelmingly considered (89%) to be the most important factor for generating think tank credibility.
Following further behind, 50% of the respondents considered ‘public communications’ strategies to be elemental.
The third most favoured quality was ‘intellectual independence and political neutrality’.
Even so, one-third of the respondents also considered that two other important factors that think tanks need to give priority to are either ‘financial stability and transparency’ or the quality of their ‘professional networks’.
Conclusion
Stressing once again that this mini-survey represents only a small sample of think tankers and related actors attending 2023 OTT Conference, the responses suggest that think tanks’ credibility should not be conflated with, or predicated upon, assumptions of ‘independence of thinking and political neutrality’.
What are the implications for think tank managers and staff? A practical matter is how they may assert their intellectual autonomy without having to resort to unrealistic claims of political neutrality, especially in regions threatened by democratic backsliding, authoritarian regimes, and political and civil unrest. Claims to, or at least aspirations for, high standards of research conduct and rigorous methodologies remain a beacon of quality whatever the political profile of a think tank. Yet, in reality, think tanks are imperfect organisations, which opens them to easy attack. This may be one reason why at least half of the respondents in the survey considered ‘public communication’ to be important in asserting credibility.
However, this mini-survey does not tell us whether policymakers and politicians value quality and high research standards. They may not. They may only care for the ideological argumentation that supports their policy positions regardless of whether it comes from high-quality, mediocre or poor-quality research. Likewise, many media outlets may only seek ‘sound-bites’ and provocative statements. Nonetheless, think tank professionalism and research conduct is one core attribute to perceptions of ‘credibility’ or ‘independence’ that OTT panel participants believed to be essential for the image of the think tank sector.