How think tanks can build trust in a fragmented information environment

Trust has long sat at the centre of what think tanks do. Research can only inform policy and public debate if people believe in the quality of the evidence, the integrity of the organisation producing it and the motivations behind the work. Yet many of the assumptions that have traditionally underpinned trust in research and policy are becoming, to say the least, less straightforward.

That was the theme running through the latest Wonkcomms Breakfast Club in London, where speakers from the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), the Nuffield Trust and the Institute for Government reflected on how changing politics, media fragmentation and shifting audience expectations are reshaping the environment in which think tanks communicate.

The discussion ranged from health policy and NHS waiting lists, to Brexit and changing media consumption habits. While the contexts differed, they pointed towards a common theme: producing robust evidence remains essential, but audiences are increasingly evaluating the institutions behind that evidence as well as the evidence itself.

For think tanks, that creates a different communications challenge from the one many organisations were navigating a decade ago.

Trust still matters, but the context around it is changing

One of the strongest themes in the discussion was that trust itself may not be in quite as much trouble as headlines sometimes suggest.

Trust in science and medicine, for example, remains relatively high. Most people are not conspiracy theorists; they are trying to make sensible decisions for themselves and their families.

What appears to be changing is more the way people are deciding where to place their trust.

Questions that may once have remained in the background are increasingly part of how information is evaluated. Who produced this? Who benefits? Does it apply to people like me? Does this institution understand the reality of my life?

For think tanks, that means evidence increasingly arrives alongside a wider set of judgements about credibility, relevance and intent.

Information doesn’t arrive in isolation

Think tank communications has traditionally focused on getting evidence into public debate — securing media coverage, influencing policymakers and ensuring research is visible when important decisions are being made.

Those objectives remain important. But information doesn’t arrive in a neutral space.

People interpret evidence through the lens of their own experiences, frustrations and priorities. Where institutions fail to address issues people care deeply about, alternative sources emerge to fill the gap.

Health policy provided several examples of this dynamic. During the discussion, the Nuffield Trust reflected on areas such as endometriosis, menopause and ADHD, where people often feel poorly served by formal systems and increasingly turn elsewhere for information, advice and support.

In those situations, trust has not necessarily disappeared. Rather, it has shifted towards patient communities, online networks and individuals who are perceived to better understand people’s experiences.

For research organisations, influence depends not only on producing accurate information, but on helping people connect that information to the questions and concerns they already have.

The Nuffield Trust also highlighted its work on NHS elective waiting lists and the issue of “unreported removals”. The concern was not that data cleaning was taking place — it is an important and necessary part of managing large datasets — but that the public had limited visibility into what sat behind a politically significant metric.So the challenge was not one of accuracy, but of transparency. If people cannot easily understand how figures are constructed, what they include or what sits beneath headline numbers, trust can quickly become more fragile.

The lesson extends well beyond health policy. For think tanks, evidence needs to be not only robust, but understandable.

Trust is reinforced through behaviour

For organisations that have spent decades building reputations for independence and rigour, credibility is reinforced through systems, processes and behaviours as much as through public-facing communications. 

Those disciplines become increasingly important as politics and media become more fragmented.

The UK political landscape is more complex than it was even a decade ago. Audiences are spread across an expanding range of platforms and channels. Traditional media remains hugely influential, particularly among policymakers and decision-makers, but communications teams are also navigating social platforms, digital channels, search and increasingly AI-driven discovery. 

Visibility still matters: think tanks cannot influence debates they are absent from.

But there was broad agreement around the tension this creates. Organisations need to remain present in public debate while protecting the qualities that made them trusted in the first place. Trust can be lost far more quickly than it can be built.

The Institute for Government’s experience during Brexit offered a useful illustration of what this looks like in practice. Faced with an intensely polarised debate, it focused less on taking positions and more on helping audiences understand the implications of different choices and decisions. That meant investing heavily in explainers, developing expertise quickly and remaining disciplined about the role it wanted to play in the conversation.

One of the lessons from that experience is that trust is often built through consistency over time. Audiences pay attention not only to what organisations say, but to whether they apply their principles when circumstances become politically difficult.

The changing role of think tank communications

Whether the conversation focused on health policy, Brexit or media fragmentation, many of the same tensions emerged.

For much of the last decade, communications discussions have focused on visibility: reaching larger audiences, generating engagement and building a presence across an expanding range of platforms. Those questions remain important, but the discussion suggested that influence increasingly depends on something broader than visibility alone.

Audiences are making judgements not only about the information they encounter, but about the institutions behind it — their credibility, relevance, motivations and consistency. That places greater emphasis on the role communications plays in helping people understand where evidence comes from, what sits behind it and why it matters.

Facts still matter enormously. Rigorous evidence remains the foundation of effective policy research. But trust is reinforced through transparency, consistency and a willingness to engage seriously with the questions audiences are already asking.

In that sense, communications is no longer simply about amplifying evidence. Increasingly, it helps shape the conditions under which evidence is understood and trusted.

If you’d like to be part of future Wonkcomms conversations, follow Soapbox on LinkedIn or sign up to our mailing list to be the first to hear about upcoming Breakfast Clubs, workshops and other events.