Do think tanks need to start rebuilding trust? – Ismael Palacin | OTT Conference 2024 keynote address

Ismael Palacín, Director of Fundació Bofill, Spain, delivers his keynote address at the OTT Conference 2024, in Barcelona.

You can follow Ismael’s presentation here: Ismael Palacin Keynote Address OTT Conference 2024

The summary below has been generated using NotebookLM and ChatGPT.

Navigating the shifting sands: the evolving role of think tanks in a world of declining trust

In a world where social and political trust is eroding and social consensus feels increasingly out of reach, I find myself returning to a difficult question: can think tanks still be useful?

This is not a rhetorical question. It’s one I grapple with regularly at Fundació Bofill, a think tank focused on public and social services and education policy. The question cuts across sectors and disciplines: what happens when our recommendations no longer work in practice? When evidence and top-down solutions lose their persuasive power? What if we – or our culture – are part of the problem?

The traditional model: effective, but no longer sufficient

For decades, think tanks have relied on a familiar model: evidence-based research, policy advice, reframing public discourse, independent expertise, and catalysing change. We’ve historically excelled at working with policymakers, civil servants, academics, and the media – offering broad policy frameworks for others to implement.

There’s good reason to value this model. It’s efficient, often low-cost, and still works well in agenda-setting and technical domains. Shifting away from it is risky – people trust us because of our established identity. Experimenting too boldly could undermine that. Resources are also limited, and broadening our remit could dilute our core strengths. Why take on new roles when others may be better placed to fulfil them?

Yet I’ve come to believe that this model simply doesn’t suffice when it comes to tackling deeply complex challenges – particularly those that require long-term, systemic change. Take the right to education. It’s no longer just about access – it’s about meaningful, relevant learning. And that’s something top-down strategies struggle to deliver. Challenges such as early school leaving can’t be addressed through financial aid alone; they demand an understanding of diverse factors, including family support, cultural attitudes, and personal guidance.

The peril of becoming a “green dog”

Venturing into new territory, however, carries real reputational risk. In Spanish we say, “quizás eres un perro verde” – a “green dog,” something so unfamiliar and out of place that no one knows what to make of it. Adopting approaches that don’t fit established categories can be genuinely dangerous for an organisation’s credibility.

Yet we’re also conscious that our changing context demands new approaches, new skills, and even new ways of thinking. At Fundació Bofill, we’ve begun to embrace:

• Open ecosystems that support systemic change;
• Communities of practice and change-makers;
• Local “living labs” that foster experimentation and learning;
• Policy design as a co-creative process, grounded in citizen engagement;
• Empathic narratives that move beyond cold, rational discourse;
• Co-created, evidence-informed models for transformation.

Three paths for the future

In reflecting on our journey and speaking with peers, I’ve identified three possible futures for think tanks:

1. Persist and partner: Double down on our traditional strengths and partner with others better suited to new roles. It’s a respectable strategy, but we’ve found it hard to identify the right partners with the right alignment.
2. Add new tools (plugins): Keep the existing model but incorporate new tools as needed – a more conservative, less risky evolution. It’s easier and less disruptive, but may not go far enough.
3. Transform the model: Reimagine what it means to be a think tank – still rigorous on evidence and policy, but also a convener of communities, a designer of change, and a facilitator of public engagement. This is the path we’ve chosen, albeit gradually and with caution.

Many think tanks appear to be navigating between the second and third options. In the long term, we may see an ecosystem emerge in which organisations specialise in different roles, each contributing a piece of the puzzle.

Our journey: Fundació Bofill’s transformation

At Fundació Bofill, our transformation has been grounded in the Catalan context – a relatively contained environment we describe as a “small and easy lab” for learning fast. We identified four key systemic challenges in educational inequality:

• Building learning communities;
• Strengthening out-of-school local ecosystems;
• Preventing early school leaving;
• Creating “schools of opportunity” and promoting digital equity.

To tackle these, we adopted a mixed strategy:

• Leading living labs with “learning agents” and change-makers;
• Generating strategic knowledge and research for collective impact coalitions;
• Developing capacity and leadership;
• Running advocacy and awareness campaigns;
• Creating scalable and sustainable models and programmes;
• Promoting citizen engagement and empathy.

This shift also reshaped how we relate to stakeholders. In addition to city councils, schools, NGOs, and universities, we now work with communities of practice, business and tech clusters, designers, activists, and change agents – groups we barely engaged with just a few years ago.

Redefining knowledge and theories of change

One key realisation is how our concept of “knowledge” has changed. In the 20th century, education policy was relatively straightforward: build schools, increase enrolment, spend more. It could be governed in a top-down manner. But today, addressing something like early school leaving means embedding the voices of pupils and teachers, and drawing on cultural, emotional, and community insights.

We’ve had to become brokers – mediators who understand these realities, engage the people who live them, and help translate them into policy and public service capacity.

Central to this shift has been our evolving theory of change. Investing time in clarifying this has been invaluable for defining our role, strategy, and impact. Our theory of change has gone through distinct phases:

• Early years (under dictatorship): Supporting intellectuals, disseminating information, and bringing ideas from abroad.
• Before 2010 (pioneering): Driving new policies, monitoring progress, and generating consensus with policymakers.
• Later phase: Transitioning towards systemic transformation – recognising that inspiration alone is not enough.
• Last two years: Committing to high-impact work focused on equity, accepting that meaningful change must align with society’s own pace and pressures.

This evolution increased our impact, but it hasn’t come without trade-offs – we’ve left areas of work where no one else stepped in.

What we’ve learnt – and what still challenges us

Some of the key lessons we’ve learnt along the way include:

• Investing in a clear theory of change improves outcomes in complex strategies;
• Establishing a shared long-term vision (3–5 years) helps build momentum;
• Creating open ecosystems and understanding incentives marks a deep cultural shift;
• Focusing on pull rather than push strategies often yields more sustainable change;
• Piloting through local living labs can pave the way for broader collective impact;
• Delivering strategic research that communities can act upon;
• Developing shared languages and tools for collaboration;
• Supporting design drivers that enable and accelerate change;
• Engaging citizens in cultural debates to reshape public policy narratives.

Yet even as we’ve increased our utility and visibility, new difficulties have arisen:

• Community autonomy: You can invest in a community, but you can’t control it. Not all of them take off – and not always in the ways you expect.
• High investment requirements: Working with communities takes more time and resources than traditional research or policy work.
• Diverging priorities: Local actors may not prioritise equity as highly as we do. We must therefore embed equity into their own incentives, without imposing it.
• Losing the global perspective: As we become more embedded locally, we risk losing the 360° vision across subjects that we once had.

And so, I return to the dilemma. Focusing only on evidence and policy debates is slower, but safer. Yet society is demanding faster, more tangible impact. The tension between old and new roles – and how we allocate resources – remains unresolved.

Our solution has been to adopt a hybrid model: staying strong in our traditional areas while evolving towards new ones. We haven’t become a green dog – perhaps more of a “hybrid dog,” agile enough to adapt to the shifting landscape, while still grounded in our mission.

The challenge ahead is not simply to change for change’s sake, but to find the right blend that meets the complex needs of today’s world. That, I believe, is the future of think tanks.