Competition or Integration? .. Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Think Tanks and Political Studies
Abstract
The study examines the implications of artificial intelligence for the future of think tanks in terms of research tools, human competencies, institutional structure, and ethical dimensions. AI has provided extensive potential for accelerating data collection and analysis, enhancing centers' ability to provide accurate and flexible insights. However, these tools pose challenges related to credibility, algorithmic biases, and the risk of eroding scientific integrity. The new phase also requires redefining the role of the researcher, focusing more on critical thinking and in-depth interpretation rather than being limited to technical tasks. At the institutional level, there is a need for clear governance frameworks and disclosure and editing policies that ensure transparency and quality. Ethically, the experience requires the adoption of strict codes of conduct for dealing with AI outputs. The study concludes that striking a balance between investing in this technology and strengthening research practices requires strategic leadership capable of developing competencies, establishing oversight mechanisms, and transforming AI into a supportive, rather than a substitute, tool for researchers.
Introduction
Over the past decade, the world has witnessed a major knowledge and technological revolution, with artificial intelligence (AI) at its core. Its applications have transcended the industrial, commercial, and financial spheres, gradually infiltrating the heart of research and intellectual work. While think tanks, studies, and political research centers have for decades represented one of the most prominent platforms for idea generation and influence in decision-making circles, the entry of AI into this field has sparked widespread debate about their future: Will AI become a competitor that threatens the position of human researchers, or will it become a complementary tool that enhances their efficiency and ability to predict and formulate scenarios?
This issue gains its importance from its connection to the role of think tanks in producing strategic knowledge and formulating theoretical frameworks that help decision-makers understand ongoing transformations. Experience has proven that these centers are not merely neutral research institutions; they have played direct political roles in shaping foreign, security, and economic policies, particularly in the United States and Europe. However, the introduction of AI tools has changed the equation; advanced systems can now analyze millions of documents and data in seconds, diminishing the uniqueness of these centers in their traditional analytical capabilities.
On the other hand, while AI raises concerns about the standardization of research discourse, the marginalization of human expertise, and the rise of plagiarism, it also offers unprecedented opportunities to strengthen the power of research centers by developing tools for proactive crisis monitoring, analyzing public opinion trends through big data, and providing accurate simulation models of international interactions.
Figures and practical indicators support this argument. For example, McKinsey reports indicate that AI could add nearly $7 trillion to the global economy by 2030, reflecting the growing volume of investment in this technology, including in the research and studies sector. Furthermore, some think tanks, such as the American RAND Corporation and the British Chatham House, have begun integrating AI-based data analysis tools into their research projects, particularly those related to cybersecurity and monitoring armed conflicts.
From here, AI will either become a competitor that diminishes the specificity of the human research role, or it will be intelligently integrated into it to become a complementary force that redefines the researcher's role and raises the quality of research products.
First: Transformations in Research Tools and Knowledge Production:
The political knowledge industry has witnessed a fundamental transformation in the last decade due to the rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI). This has reshaped information gathering methods, data processing mechanisms, and frameworks for formulating political analysis to an unprecedented degree. Whereas researchers once relied primarily on traditional sources, such as official documents, diplomatic statements, government statistics, or field reports, today they are faced with an open and unlimited information infrastructure that AI algorithms can reorganize and reread with speed and accuracy, exceeding the limits of traditional human capabilities. This transformation has been reflected in major think tanks, which now view AI as a tool to enhance their cognitive power, rather than merely a technical aid.
Information Collection
Artificial Intelligence “AI” has reshaped the concept of "primary sources" itself. Reliance is no longer limited to the archives of foreign ministries or UN databases; researchers are now able to rely on digital mining tools to extract public opinion trends from millions of tweets and posts on social media platforms. For example, the Brookings Institution employs big data analytics tools to monitor political discourse on Twitter in the Middle East, enabling it to produce more accurate readings of Arab street reactions to issues of normalization or regional wars. Similarly, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has developed analytical programs to track changes in China's economic policies by monitoring the publication cycles of official newspapers and e-commerce platforms. These experiments reflect how access to information has become a more comprehensive, rapid, and accurate process, thanks to the integration of artificial intelligence and the global digital infrastructure.
Data Processing
Artificial intelligence has brought about a qualitative shift in transforming the vast mass of unstructured information into analyzable patterns and data. Today, think tanks are no longer content with qualitative text analysis; they have entered the phase of "predictive mining," which allows them to identify future scenarios based on analyzing the correlations between hundreds of variables. For example, the RAND Corporation has been using machine learning techniques for years to map security risks. These tools enable it to anticipate the potential for regional conflicts based on analyzing data related to military spending, shifting alliance patterns, and displacement movements. These approaches were not possible with the same precision before the introduction of artificial intelligence into political research.
Formulating Political Analysis
Artificial intelligence (AI) does not yet produce final conclusions on behalf of the researcher, but rather reshapes the analytical thinking environment by providing more complex and intricate "cognitive maps." The challenge is no longer in accessing information, but rather in how to select what is essential amidst this deluge of data. Here, the value of the human researcher has emerged as someone capable of setting priorities and linking events to their historical and cultural contexts. An example of this is Chatham House's experiment in employing AI systems to monitor changes in political discourse patterns in Russia after the outbreak of the Ukraine war. However, it ensured that the initial results were merely an introduction to discussion among specialized researchers, who reframed the data within a political framework that reflects complex geopolitical interests and dimensions.
Thus, it can be said that AI has brought about a double transformation: On the one hand, it has reshaped the structure of information collection and processing in a way that maximizes the potential of think tanks to provide rapid, data-rich insights. On the other hand, it has made the "human analytical mind" even more essential, as it is crucial in sorting data and determining its political significance. This reflects a new dynamic in the knowledge industry, characterized by integration between "algorithms" and "minds," rather than a relationship of competition or substitution.
Second: The Implications of Artificial Intelligence for the Structure of Think Tanks and the Roles of Researchers
In light of the rapid boom in AI applications, the role of the researcher within think tanks and political studies centers is no longer limited to knowledge production and phenomenon analysis. Rather, it has become more complex in terms of the required skills, the governance that governs workflow, and the quality assurance mechanisms that ensure the reliability of research products. In this context, it can be said that AI has reshaped the concept of the "researcher" from a mere information analyst to a "knowledge coordinator" who combines critical thinking, technical ability, and a commitment to academic integrity.
Likewise, in the past, think tanks relied on a clear hierarchy, beginning with the junior researcher who collects data, through the intermediate researcher who works on the initial formulation of analyses, and finally the principal researcher or expert who develops the theoretical framework and oversees the final results. However, AI has come to reverse this sequence, as it has become capable of handling the stages of data collection, initial sorting, and initial processing in real-time. This means redirecting the role of the human researcher toward more abstract tasks focused on the strategic and interpretive dimension. New Skills Required for Researchers
The integration of AI tools has raised expectations for researchers. It is no longer sufficient to possess theoretical expertise or a specialized academic background. Now, technical proficiency in big data analysis, the use of simulation software, and an understanding of the algorithms used in modeling and forecasting are required. For example, the Brookings Institution stands out as a model that has integrated advanced data analysis units within its research teams. Researchers are required to collaborate with data experts to understand social and political trends through machine learning algorithms. Similarly, AI requires researchers at Chatham House to master digital verification tools (OSINT) to verify news sources, enhancing their ability to combat digital disinformation.
Governance and Internal Procedures
Technological developments require research centers to adopt clear governance policies that ensure integrity and transparency in their use of AI tools. Some global centers, such as the RAND Corporation, have established disclosure policies requiring researchers to disclose the level of AI intervention in their reports, to prevent conflicting standards and ensure the accuracy of their output. In the Arab world, the Emirates Policy Center has begun adopting stricter editorial procedures, including requiring researchers to submit a "methodology note" that accurately describes the sources of data and whether it was processed by automated tools or through human efforts. This enhances academic transparency and protects against suspicions of plagiarism.
Ensuring Quality and Credibility of Research Product
The risks of automated manipulation or algorithmic bias necessitate the establishment of mechanisms to review the quality of research. Among the proposed policies and practices adopted by some major centers are:
- Dual editorial procedures: whereby the report is reviewed by a technical team to verify the accuracy of the data used, in addition to the traditional review by a specialized academic editor.
- Disclosure and Disclosure Policy: Including a special section in studies that clearly indicates the level of intervention of smart tools in data collection, the production of graphs, or the formulation of parts of the text.
- Training researchers in algorithmic criticism: This means training them to detect bias or weaknesses in artificial intelligence tools. This approach has been implemented by some units of the US Council on Foreign Relations through specialized workshops on analyzing the risks of digital bias in political assessments.
The Organizational and Structural Environment
One of the most significant implications for the organizational structure of think tanks is that analytical units are no longer based on traditional mechanical specialization (researchers specializing in statistics, others in political analysis, and others in publishing and editing). Rather, more flexible organizational structures are emerging, combining policy experts, data engineers, and cybersecurity experts, creating "hybrid teams" capable of managing complex research projects involving big data analysis, simulation modeling, and strategic scenario estimation. This hybrid structure is no longer a luxury; it has become a necessity in light of the fierce competition among global centers over the speed and accuracy of providing analyses to decision-makers.
The implications of artificial intelligence on the structure of think tanks and the roles of researchers essentially reflect a "redistribution of tasks" between humans and machines. While algorithms assume iterative and rapid roles, researchers are redirected toward interpretive and innovative dimensions. This requires restructuring human resources, developing new governance policies, and finding formulas that balance the speed provided by artificial intelligence with the precision and depth that remain the hallmarks of the human mind. These transformations also mean that the role of the researcher is no longer measured solely by his or her individual analytical or writing abilities, but rather by his or her ability to navigate multiple cognitive and technical levels, while simultaneously adhering to the highest standards of integrity and transparency.
Third: Strategic Opportunities and Risks Facing Think Tanks in the Light of Artificial Intelligence:
Artificial intelligence represents a transformative path for the future of think tanks globally and regionally, opening up strategic opportunities to enhance their role in decision-making and influencing public policy. However, it also poses challenges and risks that could undermine their independence and credibility if not managed consciously and with careful governance.
Strategic Opportunities
AI provides think tanks with tremendous capabilities to quickly collect and process data from multiple sources in a short time, enabling researchers to transition from procedural efforts to strategic analysis. For example, big data analytics techniques can be used to extract patterns in political discourse or track changes in public opinion trends on social media platforms. This has been implemented by some American centers, such as the Brookings Institution, which has developed tools to monitor media discourse on China and Russia in near real-time. AI also enhances modeling and scenario forecasting capabilities by building multivariate simulations of geopolitical issues, providing political researchers with deeper tools to address the growing complexities of the international system. In addition, these tools enable enhanced communication with decision-makers through more accurate and rapid reports, perhaps even in the form of interactive dashboards that allow for continuous updating of information.
Strategic Risks
Despite these opportunities, think tanks face structural challenges that could undermine their credibility and independence. The first of these risks is overreliance on algorithms, which could lead to automated analyses devoid of critical depth and the human dimension in interpreting political phenomena. The second is the problem of algorithmic bias, as data sources themselves may be tainted by selectivity or misleading, exposing centers to the risk of producing unbalanced or misdirected research outputs. Third, there is the risk of marginalizing human researchers if centers become mere consumers of AI tools without investing in critical analysis skills. This could, in the long term, lead to the loss of the added value that distinguishes these centers from traditional information agencies. Furthermore, data security and confidentiality risks cannot be ignored, especially since think tanks deal with sensitive issues that could be hacked or exploited via commercial AI platforms.
Strategic Trade-offs
In light of the above, think tanks must view AI as a tool to amplify capabilities, not as a substitute for human research. The centers that will succeed in the future will be those that combine the technical power of algorithms with the critical ability of researchers, ensuring the production of sound knowledge that influences decision-making. This requires the development of integrated strategies that include: training researchers on AI tools, developing transparency and disclosure policies, and establishing governance structures that ensure the responsible use of these technologies.
Fourth: Ethical Dimensions, Challenges of Credibility, and Algorithmic Bias
The ethical dimension constitutes one of the most important controversial issues related to the use of AI in think tanks and the political analysis industry, as credibility represents the true capital of these centers, and any disruption to the standards of objectivity and transparency could weaken their influence in decision-making circles and public opinion. The biggest challenge is that algorithms designed to process data and predict scenarios may contain inherent biases that reflect the choices of programmers or the nature of the data used. This leads to the production of biased or truncated analyses that serve specific narratives, without the researcher or institution fully aware of them. This presents think tanks with a double dilemma: how to leverage the speed and accuracy of AI tools without falling into the trap of "invisible steering" of results.
Steering and Exaggeration
For example, some studies at the RAND Corporation have raised concerns about governments' reliance on AI systems to read shifts in public opinion or assess security risks. These studies have shown that machine learning models tend to exaggerate recurring patterns in social media, creating an inflated picture of the strength of some fringe political movements. At the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), researchers have faced challenges related to verifying the accuracy of machine-generated texts and analyses, which prompted the council to develop editorial protocols requiring researchers to carefully review any AI-powered content before publishing it.
Transparency and Decision-Making Accountability
Research centers should clearly disclose the level of use of AI tools in producing the analysis, and whether their role was an assistant in data collection, a participant in scenario formulation, or a primary producer of the texts. The absence of such disclosure could lead to a crisis of trust, especially in light of the competition among centers to provide original analyses characterized by human depth. In this context, Chatham House has developed clear policies stipulating that any automated technical contribution must be noted in their reports to ensure scientific credibility.
On a broader level, the presence of AI forces an ethical debate about decision-making accountability. If a strategic recommendation is based on machine-generated analysis that later turns out to be biased or inaccurate, who bears responsibility? The researcher, the research center, or the entity that adopted the recommendation? This question highlights the urgent need to establish digital governance and ethics frameworks within think tanks, including rules for algorithm review, risk assessment, and the establishment of independent committees to scrutinize AI output. Thus, it can be said that artificial intelligence does not merely present a technical opportunity to develop analytical tools. Rather, it imposes an existential test on research centers: their ability to reconcile digital proficiency with scientific integrity, and speed of production with reliability of output. Any imbalance in this equation will reshape the balance of trust and influence within the global research landscape.
Conclusion
In light of the previously presented analytical axes related to the transformations brought about by artificial intelligence in the field of research and knowledge creation, it is clear that think tanks are facing a pivotal moment that is redefining their role and function in the global political and intellectual landscape. On the one hand, artificial intelligence tools have produced unprecedented capabilities to collect information, process data, and construct analyses with speed and accuracy, giving centers the potential to expand their scope of influence and accelerate their ability to keep pace with rapidly evolving events. However, these capabilities can only bear fruit through investment in competencies, by developing researchers' skills in critically dealing with automated outputs, and adopting editorial policies and knowledge governance that ensure scientific rigor and strengthen credibility.
On the other hand, rebuilding the institutional structure of think tanks to adapt to this technological revolution is a strategic requirement for survival, whether through the establishment of specialized units for big data analysis or the adoption of advanced mechanisms for disclosure and transparency.
However, all of these transformations remain linked to a central issue related to ethical dimensions and the risks of algorithmic bias, which threaten to undermine trust if not addressed within clear frameworks for accountability and ensuring integrity. Accordingly, it can be argued that the future vision of think tanks in the age of artificial intelligence should be based on a balanced combination of investing in technical tools, building human capital capable of monetizing them, and strengthening institutional structures that embrace this transformation, while consolidating the values of integrity and objectivity as a controlling framework that preserves the essence of the research mission. Centers that succeed in achieving this balance will transform into more influential and flexible knowledge platforms, capable of formulating policies and keeping pace with global changes, while those that fail to address these transformations will find themselves on the margins of the global intellectual scene. With this combination, AI becomes not just an additional tool, but a crucial factor in reshaping the identity and future roles of think tanks.
References and sources
- Wolff, Guntram. "Artificial Intelligence: An Opportunity and a Challenge for Think Tanks." In The Future of Think Tanks and Policy Advice Around the World. Bruegel, 2021, at:
https://www.guntramwolff.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Wolff2021_Chapter_ArtificialIntelligenceAnOpport.pdf - On Think Tanks. "AI preparedness for think tanks." April 20, 2024,at:
https://onthinktanks.org/articles/ai-preparedness-for-think-tanks/. - On Think Tanks. "The promise and perils of AI in shaping tomorrow's think tanks and foundations." February 4, 2024, at:
https://onthinktanks.org/articles/the-promise-and-perils-of-ai-in-shaping-tomorrows-think-tanks-and-foundations/. - Peters, U. "Algorithmic Political Bias in Artificial Intelligence Systems." Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 2022, at:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8967082/. - “Best AI Research Tools for Academics and Researchers.” Litmaps, 31 Dec 2024, at:
https://www.litmaps.com/learn/best-ai-research-tools. - “12 AI Research Tools to Drive Knowledge Exploration.” DigitalOcean, 30 Jul 2025, at:
https://www.digitalocean.com/resources/articles/ai-research-tools - Johns Hopkins University Libraries. “Using AI Tools for Research.” Johns Hopkins University, 24 Apr 2025, at:
https://guides.library.jhu.edu/c.php?g=1465762&p=10904515 - Overton. “AI for policy: scoping new tools & data for evidence synthesis.” Overton Blog, 31 Oct 2024, at:
https://www.overton.io/blog/ai-for-policy-scoping-new-tools-data-for-evidence-synthesis - OECD. “Assessing potential future artificial intelligence risks, benefits and policy imperatives.” OECD, 2024, at:
https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2024/11/assessing-potential-future-artificial-intelligence-risks-benefits-and-policy-imperatives_8a491447/3f4e3dfb-en.pdf - “Opportunities and challenges of AI-systems in political decision-making.” Frontiers in Political Science, 18 Mar 2025, at:
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/political-science/articles/10.3389/fpos.2025.1504520/full - European Parliament Think Tank. “Artificial intelligence: From ethics to policy.” European Parliamentary Research Service, 23 Jun 2020, at:
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_STU(2020)641507.%5B9