Think Tanks and the future

What are the most likely and impactful trends or scenarios for the future?

Research funded by IDRC (see additional resources below) emphasise that the future is characterised by volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA), meaning it cannot be predicted or foretold, but a range of different futures can be imagined. The goal of the foresight work conducted in the sources is to generate structured ideas about the future to help R4D actors better anticipate, shape, and prepare for change.

The most likely and most impactful trends and possible scenarios for the future of research for development (R4D) are shaped by powerful external forces (disruptors and enablers) and internal systemic changes, often leading to a state described as a “polycrisis”.

Here is a synthesis of the most likely and most impactful trends and possible scenarios identified across the R4D sources:

Most Impactful External Trends (Drivers and Disruptors)

These macro-level trends are highly likely to persist and exert significant pressure on R4D systems over the long term (10+ years).

A. Geopolitical and Economic Instability (The Polycrisis)

The convergence of global crises is the defining characteristic of the future context.

• Compounding Crises and Tipping Points: The future will be defined by individual risks compounding to create tipping points, merging with persistent crises to create potentially catastrophic outcomes. The complexity requires foresight and transdisciplinary approaches to devise research questions and communicate findings.
• Economic Strain: A persistent global economic crisis, characterised by global debt crisis, asset bubbles bursting, and a cost of living crisis, will likely continue to limit resources for R&D. Governments may prioritise short-term needs over long-term R&D investments.
• Geopolitical Instability: The retreat from a rules-based global system, coupled with wars, conflicts, and proxy wars (like the invasion of Ukraine) will redirect funds away from research and constrain funding. Political instability in regions like West and Central Africa (WARO) will spur ‘prolonged crisis’ situations, limiting research not directly linked to security.
• Multipolarity and External Influence: The global reliance on traditional partners (e.g., EU, US) is shifting due to rising isolationism and the growing influence of China in trade, investment, and diplomacy, leading to a multipolar R4D environment. This external influence, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), is seen as a threat that could shape R4D agendas and hinder localisation efforts.

B. Environmental Crisis and Sustainability Focus

Climate change and environmental degradation pose existential threats that will profoundly shape research priorities.

• Climate Tipping Points: Extreme weather events, worsened by climate change, are predicted to lead to extreme disasters, potentially causing food system collapse and displacing billions.
• Increasing R4D Focus on Climate: Climate change will be a growing priority area across research agendas due to the region’s vulnerability to extreme weather. This is driven by multilateral development banks and organisations. Research must focus on climate change resilience, particularly in agriculture and food systems.
• Knock-on Effects: Disruptors include the knock-on effects of biodiversity collapse (e.g., rapid decline in pollinators) and pollution leading to public health crises (e.g., 9 million deaths per year).

C. Technological Disruption and Digital Transformation

New technologies are both the greatest disruptors and the greatest potential enablers for R4D, depending on how they are governed and adopted.

• AI and Frontier Tech: The emergence of AI tools (like ChatGPT/LLM) and other frontier technologies (geo-engineering, gene editing) has the potential to revolutionise the production and use of evidence. However, this is closely linked to cyber-security risks and ineffective regulation.
• Data and Bias: The greatest challenge in applying AI effectively in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is the poor quality and northern bias of training datasets. Failure to invest in LMIC-derived training data will result in solutions that are irrelevant or “downright mischievous”.
• Digital Governance Lag: Understanding how to govern digital societies is not keeping pace with technological development. Issues of digital sovereignty, national firewalls, and the role of Web 3.0 will have critical implications for international research collaborations.
• Digital Divide: The migration of research activities to online spaces, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic, risks excluding researchers and communities without reliable internet access or digital skills, exacerbating existing inequalities.

Most Impactful Internal Trends and Desirable Scenarios

The future R4D landscape will be shaped by how institutions respond to external pressures.

A. Systemic Shifts in R4D Governance and Institutional Roles

The research landscape will continue to experience shifting dynamics among actors, institutions, and incentives.

• Deepening Institutionalisation (Unevenly): There is a long-term trend towards the deepening institutionalisation of research systems in many Asian countries (ARO), marked by the emergence of stable rules, resource windows, and dedicated actors like social science research councils. However, this institutionalisation is uneven. In WARO, a lack of an effective coordination agency (like well-mandated science granting councils) hinders the steering of the national research system.
• Rise of Policy Think Tanks: Policy think tanks are becoming increasingly important for governments at national and regional levels across Asia (ARO) and WARO, often to the detriment of universities and NGOs. This reflects a growing governmental demand for policy-relevant evidence, though it also signals a careful management of evidence partnerships by policy actors.
• Demand for Localisation and Decolonisation: There is an increasing demand for contextually relevant research, and a growing trend towards localisation and decolonisation of research. R4D funders will need to accept a potentially smaller role in international research debates and foster approaches that let locally appropriate research ecosystems emerge.
• Focus on Systemic Change: Future efforts must move beyond incremental improvements in projects and tools to focus on deeper systemic change, challenging assumptions that reinforce inequalities and lock in outdated ways of doing things. Strategic action requires identifying options to shift the system from the present status quo (H1) toward a preferred future (H3).

B. Shifts in Funding Models and Incentives

R4D funding mechanisms must evolve to address limitations in local resources and persistent systemic issues (e.g., brain drain).

• Need for Sustainable Core Funding: A major desired future scenario (H3 in the Three Horizons Framework) involves long-term core funding and support for southern research institutions. This is viewed as an influential factor that could lead to more resilient, stable institutions, local control over the research agenda, and greater integration with global networks.
• Diversification and Innovation in Funding: The reliance on external, project-based funding needs to be replaced by new funding options that are flexible and diverse. Innovative funding models like reparation finance, alternatives to GDP, and community funding (Stokvel) models should be explored.
• Revising Incentives and Measuring Impact: R4D will require wider metrics and tools for evaluation, moving beyond traditional publications. Future systems need to widen the circle of incentives/rewards/career progression for academics beyond peer-reviewed journals. Impact measures must link to real change in practice and reward researchers for being “good scientific citizens”.
• Addressing Brain Drain: Geopolitical instability and limited budgets exacerbate the threat of brain drain. R4D funders must implement more cross-border incentives to enable the free flow of researchers and build capacity locally.

C. The Preferred Future: A Transformative R4D System

The desired outcome for the future of R4D is a system that supports transformative development pathways and possesses four key attributes:

1. Equitable: Research fairness initiatives are supported, assessing progress towards equitable partnerships and challenging inequalities and power dynamics.
2. Open: Emphasis is placed on open science in terms of production and use, with investments in open data and methods, interoperability, and crowdsourcing.
3. Capable: Capabilities for transformative research, social, and institutional innovation are grown, addressing structural issues like research infrastructure and developing new funding options.
4. Connected: Novel alliances and partnerships are learned from and cultivated, strengthening capabilities for transformative research and understanding demand for research.

In this preferred future, research impact is transformed to prioritise local contexts, ensuring that definitions and metrics are created and valued at the community level.

But is it possible?

What possible interventions could address these changes and future challenges?

Achieving this requires structured strategic interventions and systemic shifts to move away from the current volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) context and address persistent challenges like inequitable funding and exclusionary practices.

The systemic interventions and strategic options for building equitable, capable, and connected R4D systems fall into several key areas: institutional reform, funding model innovation, enhancing research practices, capacity building, and promoting connectivity/collaboration. These options represent pathways (H2 interventions) to transition the current system (H1) toward a preferred transformative future (H3).

Here are the systemic interventions and strategic options detailed in the sources, clustered according to the attributes of a transformative R4D system:

I. Building an Equitable R4D System

An equitable system focuses on research fairness, challenging inequalities, surfacing power dynamics, and supporting marginalised groups.

A. Addressing Exclusion and Power Dynamics

Systemic interventions must directly challenge the structural inequalities and power imbalances inherent in traditional R4D systems.

• Support Research Fairness Initiatives: Assess progress toward equitable partnerships in opportunity, process, and outcome.
• Decolonizing Practices: Focus on decolonizing minds and practices in R4D.
• Visibility of Politics: Make visible and explore the politics of knowledge in the framing, producing, mobilising, and quality assurance processes.
• Challenge Inequalities: Actively challenge assumptions that reinforce inequalities and surface the power dynamics that shape knowledge production agendas.
• Promote Inclusivity: Implement diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. Ensure intersectionality is a research priority.
• Community and Lived Experience: Formalise lived experience and create platforms for more people to be seen and heard. Ensure research is contextually relevant.

B. Gender Equity and Inclusion

Specific strategies are needed to address persistent gender gaps and support women in R4D.

• Gender-Responsive Funding: Ensure funding is not gender biased and women are encouraged to pursue or continue R4D careers.
• Acknowledge Women’s Burden: Research funding programmes should account for women’s “double workday” (income-generating and domestic work).
• Call Out Backlash: Recognise and fund initiatives to confront gender backlash.
• Strengthen Women’s Organisations: Allocate resources for strengthening/funding of women’s organisations.

C. Reforming Research Incentives and Evaluation

Evaluation must expand beyond traditional metrics to recognise diverse contributions and ensure accountability to local contexts.

• Widen Academic Incentives: Widen the circle of incentives/rewards/career progression for academics beyond peer-reviewed journals.
• Measure Real Impact: Create impact measures that link to real change in practice. Measure and value contributions outside of academic incentives.
• Reward Scientific Citizenship: Reward researchers for being “good scientific citizens,” recognising what they leave behind when they engage with communities (i.e., local change beyond publications).
• Support Research Fairness: Support research fairness initiatives in opportunity, process, and outcome.
• Alternative Knowledges: Acknowledge non-conventional systems of research and measurement and make visible and explore the politics of knowledge.

II. Building a Capable R4D System

A capable system involves growing institutional capacity, promoting transformative research skills, addressing structural gaps (like infrastructure), and diversifying funding options.

A. Innovating Funding and Financial Architecture

Interventions must address the reliance on external funding and limited local resources by developing new, flexible, and sustainable financial models.

• Develop New Funding Options: Actively develop new funding options that are flexible, diverse. Experiment with and refine scalable and flexible funding models.
• Explore Innovative Funding Sources: Explore Reparation finance (starting with climate change), Alternatives to GDP, and Stokvel (community funding) models for funding.
• Sustainable Core Funding: Work toward long-term core funding and support for southern research institutions.
• Shift to Demand-Driven Funding: Promote or mandate a shift towards demand-driven research funding, moving away from donor-dependency in setting research priorities.
• Increase Institutional Support: Increase the percentage of eligible overhead costs and provide sustainable indirect costs to institutions.

B. Strengthening Institutional Capacity and Infrastructure

Building capability requires targeted interventions to remedy structural issues and brain drain.

• Address Structural Gaps: Address structural issues that create capability and capacity gaps, including research infrastructure.
• Combat Brain Drain: Address brain drain challenges. Put in place more cross-border incentives to enable the free flow of researchers.
• Support Institutional Self-Sufficiency: HEIs to support departments and researchers to become self-sufficient, including strengthening research support offices and financial management staff.
• Invest in Digital Infrastructure: Invest in AI infrastructure to equip researchers with needed facilities.

C. Enhancing Transformative Research Skills

Capabilities must be grown for transdisciplinary, reflexive, and risk-taking research.

• Grow Capabilities for Transformative Research: Grow capabilities for transformative research, social, and institutional innovation.
• Invest in Transdisciplinarity: Mainstream and enable transdisciplinarity. Recognise and invest in transdisciplinarity careers.
• Promote Reflexivity: Be reflexive—ensure feedback loops for learning in practice.
• Activate Risk-Taking: Encourage researchers to be creative and take risks.

III. Building a Connected R4D System

A connected system fosters novel alliances, strengthens knowledge-brokering mechanisms, and ensures research demand is understood.

A. Fostering Collaboration and Partnerships

Systemic collaboration should span academic, policy, and community spheres, domestically and regionally.

• Cultivate Novel Alliances: Learn from and cultivate novel alliances and partnerships, including indigenous knowledge, grassroots innovation, and knowledge brokering.
• Funders’ Coordination Architecture: Establish architecture for funders to coordinate.
• Promote Coordination of Initiatives: Coordinate like-minded initiatives.
• Intersectoral Collaboration: Strengthen academia-industry linkages and establish processes for inter-ministerial collaborations to align science & research support to developmental challenges.
• Engage Non-Traditional Actors: Ask “who is not here that should be here” when planning conversations. Include Gen-Z in research design, development, and implementation.
• Strengthen Regional Networks: Support funding initiatives that promote national, regional, and international research networks.

B. Knowledge Brokering and Policy Uptake

Strategies must improve the mechanisms for research utilisation by policymakers and enhance the capacity of users to engage with evidence.

• Nurture Knowledge Brokering: Nurture innovative knowledge brokering mechanisms.
• Strengthen Capacity of Users: Strengthen the capacities/capacity of non-researchers to use evidence. Funders need to pay more attention to ‘inquiry into policy processes’.
• Understand Demand: Focus on understanding demand and building demand for research. Make user-generated research and funding questions integral to the process.
• Institutionalise Evidence Use: Create a certification for government agencies that use knowledge to inform policy.
• Promote Communication: Invest in promoting science communication in graduate research training programs. Recognise art and storytelling as transformative knowledge.

C. Digital and Open Science Integration

Harnessing digital technologies and open science principles is essential for equitable knowledge sharing and accessibility.

• Invest in Open Data and Methods: Invest more in open data and methods, including Access and ethics, Interoperability, and Crowdsourcing.
• Harness AI and Technology: Harness AI for language education and intercultural education. Explore partnerships to support the adoption and integration of emerging technologies like Web 3 and ChatGPT (and other LLM) into the R4D ecosystem.
• Strengthen Data Governance: Fund initiatives that strengthen data governance frameworks, addressing data privacy, promoting open data, and developing ethical guidelines.
• Promote Open Access: Establish open science as a priority and advocate for a change in the rules of the publishing sector to allow open access to scholarly knowledge.

Think tanks are incorporating these analyses to develop new strategies

Articles and reports 

• The future of think tanks