The think tank and research sector is undergoing exceptional challenges that go beyond funding problems. These challenges stem from a world of rising uncertainty, including security-related issues, information disorder, and, most importantly, rapid technological advancements that will undoubtedly transform the research we know today. Over the past few months, hundreds of millions of dollars have been cut from research budgets at universities in the US and other parts of the world, following shifts in foreign policy and geopolitical dynamics. Particularly in fragile regions, such as conflict-stricken or post-conflict states, a more adaptive, context-sensitive policy approach is essential for enabling evidence-based research and informing the public and policymakers. More than ever, the think tank sector needs adaptive funding models that break the disconnect between experts, policymakers, donors, and the communities they serve.
In fragile contexts, breaking the disconnect between research and the public provides real opportunities for think tankers and researchers to co-create knowledge and generate informed policy work centred around the needs of the communities they serve. For this to happen, think tanks in fragile regions, like Iraq and several other states in the Middle East (Mideast), must move beyond being distant experts or government critics and instead work as facilitators between the public and their government. This is important to encourage a culture of evidence-based research as the centre stage for finding root causes and diagnosing policy issues with direct involvement of the communities impacted by the outcome of these policies. In this sense, a break from the traditional funding models is essential, as they usually prioritise the donor’s demands and rigidly follow a predefined structure, leaving little room for experimentation, adaptation, or learning from failure.
What is wrong with the old funding model?
When I first started as a research specialist at iNNOV8 Research Center, I fundamentally believed that the difference in quality research and policy work in fragile regions like Iraq, where iNNOV8 is based, is the lack of substantial funds and, to an extent, the lack of data. However, today, I believe the main challenge and opportunity facing the think tank sector lies in how we approach knowledge creation itself. For instance, large international organisations and institutes fund hundreds of think tanks and research foundations in the Middle East to conduct research and policy work, yielding tangible and measurable results. What I have observed is that rarely do experts and researchers from these think tanks involve community members, local people, and even government officials in the research process from the very beginning. This is a detrimental failure on the part of think tankers who engage in a monologue by assuming the policy issues without engaging relevant stakeholders. Quite honestly, no matter the scale at which international donors fund big projects, experts (who often come from elite backgrounds or owe their allegiance to certain politicians/businessmen) design research and present the findings to policymakers, which usually have little impact on the ground. This is because expertise alone is not enough. Leaving people who are most affected by expert-driven policies out of strategic consultations becomes a box-ticking exercise rather than a vehicle for policy change.
I have seen this firsthand. In one project, the INNOV8 team piloted a policy paper to assess the top policies relevant to voters in the 2024 Kurdistan Region’s Parliamentary Elections. After spending months assuming policy priorities, we realised our policy assumptions were entirely different from those of the voters. I now understand that seeing ourselves as knowledge producers or critics is not enough, and that our assumptions as experts and researchers have real consequences when we fail to acknowledge that everyone brings valuable knowledge to the table. The turning point for me was clear: real, tangible impact can only be seen when research is conducted with people, not on them. Thus, in fragile contexts, it is important to invest in projects that open doors for diverse voices who have learned through trial and error and understand the risks and opportunities associated with experimentation and failure.
What fragile states need from donors
Funders are undoubtedly an essential pillar in making research possible in fragile regions where research and development (R&D) remain underfunded. This is especially true for Iraq, where consecutive governments consistently dedicate well below 0.1 per cent of GDP to research and development, while OECD countries often spend 2-3 per cent on R&D. With this huge, underfunded research structure, the focus today is on international partnerships to better support future growth. Meanwhile, the development fund gains traction and joint initiatives expand; funders need to rethink the parameters on which they grant funds in fragile states. The fundamental issue with funding structures is that they are often short-term, rigid, and focused mainly on deliverables rather than learning and experimentation. Funders need to understand the value of adaptive research- what works and what does not work. More importantly, fragile states require donors who are willing to take a chance on producing evidence-based research by investing in diverse relationships and strategic experimentation.
Rather than funding operational or research initiatives, donors should focus on “learning grants” that primarily encourage a culture of learning and capacity building in fragile states. This funding model improves practices by systematically studying what works, and what does not, and why. It will also be easier for think tanks to connect and share the lessons learned (or unlearned), rather than operating separately in a vacuum where criticism of each other’s work becomes the culture. Donors need to take a leap of faith on learning/flexible funding models that support iterative, participatory work, which will reward them with deeper insights and more sustainable outcomes. Additionally, donors need to open doors for entry-level learners instead of giving funds to senior organisations and institutes that often have outdated structures or an oligarchic approach to who they employ and what research themes they focus on, merely to attract what donors are looking for.
iNNOV8’s experimental approach in Iraq and the Middle East
At iNNOV8, we’ve started to embrace a culture of learning and experimentation — not only to rethink our role as a think tank, but also to find the balance between the demands of donors and the needs of our community. In this spirit, for instance, we applied to partner with the AI Action Summit to initiate discussions on leveraging AI for sustainable development in developing regions. Since the Summit was held in Paris, most applicants focused on AI’s significance in the developed countries. iNNOV8 was the first think tank from Iraq to be accepted into the AI Action Summit, where we held a panel discussion highlighting the opportunities and challenges that AI presents for developing regions, particularly the Middle East. Our donor, Channel8 Media Corporation, supported this idea through a flexible funding strategy that prioritised experimentation and learning- a vital mindset for driving meaningful change in fragile contexts. This approach is crucial in enabling think tanks like iNNOV8 to pursue bold projects that transcend traditional boundaries.
In conclusion, I believe the most important question at the core of research and the future of think tanks is how to cultivate resilience and adaptability with the help of donors, policymakers, and the communities we serve. Donors who want to cultivate a culture of learning and participatory work with and between think tanks need to adopt new models of engagement that do not centre around their demands, but rather the needs of the communities they want to help. At the end of the day, as think tanks, our willingness to rethink our roles depends not only on building trust with donors, government, and communities, but also between ourselves. Think tanks that can balance the demands of donors with the needs of their communities will be uniquely positioned to maintain credibility, influence, and impact over time, as they continue to bridge donor expectations with local priorities even amid fragile and volatile contexts.