The Nairobi launch of the 2025 State of the Sector report brought together senior leaders and researchers from the region’s policy research ecosystem. The conversation was frank, practical, and at times urgent. Participants returned again and again to four core tensions: (1) how to engage with rapidly advancing technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) without exacerbating inequities; (2) how to preserve intellectual independence while co-creating with governments and funders; (3) how to survive and grow under short-term, projectised funding regimes; and (4) how to increase visibility and policy uptake through stronger communications and packaging of research as solutions. These tensions are highlighted below.
The AI Dilemma: How to engage with AI without increasing inequities
The 2025 State of Sector report revealed that AI uptake jumped from 57% in 2024 to 71% in 2025, with adoption concentrated in higher-income contexts. Only 50% of African think tanks use AI, with reasons cited for not using it including lack of expertise (67%), ethical concerns (46%), and limited funding (33%). African think tanks are approaching artificial intelligence with a mix of caution and concern, shaped largely by ethical considerations and persistent capacity constraints. As Rupert Corbishley, Aga Khan Foundation, noted, there are concerns about biased datasets, opaque algorithms, data sovereignty, and the risk of reproducing global power imbalances in knowledge production, especially in the education sector, particularly when AI tools are developed and governed outside the continent.
At the same time, Jane Mariara, Executive Director, PEP, noted that limited technical skills, inadequate digital infrastructure, and scarce core funding make experimentation with AI appear risky or impractical, especially for organisations already stretched by immediate policy demands. This hesitance is understandable and, in many respects, responsible; however, it also raises a difficult question posed by Keith Hansen, as think tanks in other regions rapidly integrate AI into communications (49%), research (46%) and administration (30%) (State of Sector Report, 2025), Africa risks once again being positioned as a late adopter rather than a shaper of emerging technologies. The challenge, therefore, is not whether African think tanks should embrace AI uncritically, but whether they can find pathways to engage with it on their own terms, ethically and contextually, and with sufficient investment in skills and institutional capacity so that caution does not inadvertently lead to another cycle of structural lag.
That tension is echoed in broader policy conversations. Analyses of AI trends in Africa highlight both rapid market growth and stark divides in readiness and infrastructure, meaning countries and organisations differ widely in their ability to adopt AI safely and effectively. UNESCO’s regional work and multi-partner AI for Africa by Africa commitment underscores the need for national strategies and readiness assessments. At the same time, market analyses point to fast growth in AI adoption in pockets of the continent, creating a real risk that benefits concentrate where skills, connectivity and funding already exist. The practical implication is simple: think tanks will not reject AI on principle, but they require dedicated training, ethics guidance and investments in digital inclusion to use it responsibly.
Independence and co-creation
Leaders at the meeting also debated how to co-create policy with government and funders while retaining intellectual autonomy. Participants emphasised that perceived independence is as important as formal independence. Funders and government partners are essential for impact; yet funder priorities often tilt research agendas away from locally perceived priorities. This is a long-standing dilemma: funders and governments are often essential partners for impact and resourcing, yet their involvement can shape agendas and public perception.
Conversations on the localisation agenda point out that power imbalances in funding relationships make genuine co-creation challenging unless funders change their modalities (longer horizons, flexible core support, shared decision-making tools). Tied to this was the discussion around funding and business models of Kenyan think tanks.
Failing business models
The 2025 State of Sector report found that fundraising remains the biggest capacity gap for African think tanks. Unlike many think tanks in the Global North that combine endowments, consulting revenue, and diversified funding portfolios, most African research organisations rely on international grants that cover discrete projects but rarely provide core funding or institutional support. This model creates chronic budgeting challenges, forcing think tanks to chase short donor funding cycles and undermining their ability to invest in talent, long-term research agendas, and organisational resilience. The participants highlighted the short funding cycles, limited core support, and underinvestment in salaries and career pathways as the sector’s top structural problems. Organisations find it hard to retain mid-career staff and therefore rely on expensive short-term consultants or less-experienced hires. Additionally, many think tanks find it hard to cover indirect costs. This is not surprising as there have been recent huge aid cuts in the sector. Wider donor trends show slowing or redirected aid flows and slow progress on localisation promises.
The decline in ODA, exacerbated by major contributors like the United States and several European donors cutting their overseas aid commitments, means African think tanks are being squeezed from both sides: less external funding and limited domestic revenue streams. Without fundamental shifts toward core, flexible, and multi-year financing either through domestic public investment, regional funding mechanisms, or genuinely equitable partnerships with philanthropy, this dependency risks stunting evidence-informed policy engagement on the continent. As the aid era contracts, the sustainability and relevance of African think tanks will hinge on new business models that reduce vulnerability to external shocks and align funding with locally defined priorities rather than transient donor cycles.
The Nairobi discussion, however, noted successful examples of significant local gifts raised through relationship managers—this is a promising model for replication. There is rising interest in locally rooted philanthropic channels and high-net-worth engagement as alternative revenue sources. Developing local fundraising pathways through cultivating relationships with domestic philanthropists, banks, and corporate CSR channels offers a pathway to diversify income and potentially achieve organisational resilience. Other suggestions were to consider pooled/shared services for smaller organisations (shared finance systems, joint payroll, joint procurement), where trust allows.
Visibility, communication and the risk of being irrelevant
Several participants stressed that Kenyan think tanks produce strong research but struggle to be visible in the media and with funders. Communications were often ad hoc, under-resourced, and disconnected from the research strategy. The lack of dedicated communications staff or strategy, and the production of outputs that never reach beyond specialist audiences because they are not packaged for broader consumption or media engagement, means that even high-quality research can remain invisible outside academic or donor circles, making it harder to shape policy and attract diverse funding.
A survey of think tanks in Africa highlights that limited media exposure and the absence of robust communication strategies are among the barriers hindering effective engagement with policymakers and the public, undermining sustained impact. The visibility challenge is not unique to Africa, but the implications are particularly acute given the high competition for limited attention and resources.
There are deeper dimensions, too. Visibility is about more than media mentions; it requires think tanks to articulate clear, accessible, and relevant narratives, tailor content to varied audiences, and engage proactively with digital platforms. Without these capacities, even rigorous evidence risks being sidelined in public discourse, reinforcing perceptions that think tanks are disconnected from everyday policy concerns or elite-oriented. Strengthening communication and visibility is therefore not just a tactical issue but a strategic necessity for think tanks that aim to be credible, influential actors in Africa’s policy ecosystem. Practically, this means think tanks should prioritise packaging research as solutions, invest in professional communications (in-house or outsourced), and measure reach and uptake, not just publications.
Other tips suggested during the meeting were to
- Treat communications as strategic, not decorative: allocate line-item budgets and senior oversight for comms work; require research teams to co-produce short briefs and dissemination plans from project inception.
- Use a mix of channels: policy briefs, media op-eds, data visualisations, social media threads, and direct briefings to decision-makers.
- Document reach and uptake to show funders how communication investments translate into influence.
- Consider outsourcing high-value comms campaigns where internal capacity is weak, while building internal basic skills for sustained engagement.
Conclusion
The Nairobi convening was not about identifying new problems, as the challenges facing African think tanks are already well known and widely documented. Instead, it was a shared call to action. There is no single solution, but a set of changes that need to happen together: investing in people and digital skills, experimenting with new funding models such as local philanthropy and shared services, strengthening institutional practices to protect independence, and improving how think tanks communicate their work. Taken together, these shifts can help African think tanks remain credible while also becoming more visible and influential in a rapidly changing policy environment.