Key features in a nutshell

• Cartoons turn abstract science–policy competencies and soft skills into recognisable situations from science–policy practice.
• They make visible and discussable not only challenges, but also the different realities, underlying assumptions and dynamics that shape how people perceive and respond to them.
• Cartoons can be used in many ways: to introduce a topic, prompt reflection, start a group discussion, connect experiences to competencies, or inspire participants to create their own visual stories.
• No artistic experience is needed. The aim is not to interpret a cartoon “correctly”, but to use it as a starting point for reflection and exchange.

How does the format work?

Dialogues at the science–policy interface can go off the rails for reasons that are easy to overlook: trust was never built, evidence arrived at the wrong moment, people were talking past each other, power dynamics remained unnamed, or researchers had not reflected on the role they were playing.

Competency frameworks can help us describe what is needed in these situations. But descriptions such as relational competency, reflexivity or navigating complexity remain fairly abstract until we can connect them to situations people recognise from their own work.

How do we iden

tify these situations and find out that might share the same experience to exchange about? Our answer is visual storytelling.

Together with cartoonist Christof Stückelberger, we translated science–policy competencies and soft skills into a series of cartoons. Each cartoon brings an aspect of science–policy engagement to life through a recognisable scene. Some are about complexity and uncertainty. Others deal with finding the right moment for engagement, tailoring communication to different audiences, building trust, recognising power asymmetries or reflecting on one’s own role.

The humour matters, but the cartoons are more than illustrations or entertaining additions to a presentation. They give people something concrete to look at, react to and talk about.

Instead of beginning with a definition such as “What does reflexive competency mean?”, a facilitator can simply show a cartoon and ask:

What is happening here? Or can you relate to this?

That small shift makes a difference. Participants can first talk about the characters rather than themselves. They can disagree about what they see, notice different details and compare interpretations. Recognition often follows: “I have been in this situation.” From there, the conversation can move naturally towards their own experiences.

The cartoons can therefore be used at different stages of teaching and learning. The cartoons can be used with a single image in a ten-minute discussion or ice-breaker, or as part of a longer course or workshop.

Explore and recognise

Show one cartoon or display several around the room. Ask participants which scene feels familiar, surprising or relevant to their work.

Simple questions are often enough:

• What do you see?
• What seems to be happening?
• What is the difficult part of this situation?
• Have you experienced something similar?

At this stage, there is no need to explain the competency behind the cartoon. Let people interpret it first.

Discuss and connect

Once participants have explored the situation, the discussion can move towards the competencies or soft skills involved.

Questions might include:

• Which science–policy challenge does this cartoon surface?
• Which competencies (in your own words or based on a competencies framework) matter here?
• Why might the different actors see the situation differently?
• What could have been done differently?
• What would make this situation easier to navigate?

A simple structure such as: Challenge → Competency → Possible strategy, can help participants move from recognising a problem to thinking about what might help.

The important point is not to match each cartoon with one “correct” competency or soft skill. Science–policy situations are usually messier than that. A communication problem may also involve trust. A question of timing may also reflect institutional incentives. An apparent disagreement over evidence may

hide different values, roles or understandings of the problem.

Reflect on experience

Cartoons can also provide a low-threshold way to open conversations about experiences that participants might otherwise hesitate to discuss.

A cartoon about power, for example, allows a group to talk about the power relationship shown in the picture before asking whether similar situations occur in their own projects or organisations. A cartoon about failed communication can prompt people to explore why apparently clear messages are understood differently by scientists, policymakers and practitioners.

Humour can lower defences; recognition does the rest.

Reimagine the situation

Participants can go one step further and ask what is missing from the cartoon collection.

What science–policy challenge have they experienced that is not yet represented?

They can sketch their own scene using stick figures, speech bubbles or simple symbols. No artistic skill is required. The useful part is the conversation involved in deciding what to draw:

What exactly is the challenge? Whose perspective should be shown? What is difficult to make visible? What competency or soft skill might help?

Creating a new cartoon can therefore turn participants from viewers into interpreters and creators of their own science–policy experiences.

Possible challenges and how to address them

One temptation is to explain

a cartoon immediately. This can quickly turn the exercise into a test: “Which competency does this cartoon represent?”

Try the opposite. Let participants look, interpret and discuss before providing the background. Different readings are not a problem; they are part of the exercise.

It is also useful to avoid reducing every challenge to an individual skill deficit. Science–policy engagement takes place within institutions and political contexts. A researcher may understand perfectly well how to communicate with policymakers but still face a closed policy window, organisational incentives that discourage engagement, or unequal power relations.

Tasks and resources

• For scientists: Look for connections between the cartoons and situations from your own work. Be prepared to compare your interpretation with those of people working in other roles.
• For knowledge exchange officers / research managers: Select cartoons that fit your audience and learning goals. Use them as conversation starters rather than illustrations that need to be explained. Printed cartoons, sticky notes and a few guiding questions are usually enough.
• For policymakers: Bring the policy perspective into the discussion. The same situation may look very different depending on institutional responsibilities, timing, political feasibility and evidence needs.

References

Last, L., Piessens-Siegrist, M., Zhang, J., Stückelberger, C., & Hoffmann, S. (in press). Cosmovisions in dialogue: Visualizing competencies at the science–policy interface. In E. E. Tibet, S. Keller, C. Mutiyamana, & E. Cledat (Eds.), Cosmovisions Arts.

Dettwiler, D., Salomon, H., Piessens-Siegrist, M. et al. (2025), Building capacity at the science–policy interface: a competencies framework. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-06403-5

Cartoon credit- Competencies at the Science–Policy Interface:

© Eawag, WFSC & PSC. Jialin Zhang, Sabine Hoffmann, Luisa Last & Monika Piessens-Siegrist; cartoons by Christof Stückelberger. CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.https://www.eawag.ch/de/abteilung/ess/publikationen/cartoons-kompetenzen-an-der-schnittstelle-zwischen-wissenschaft-und-politik/

Cartoon credit- Soft Skills at the Science–Policy Interface:
Soft skills at the Science–Policy Interface (2026), Sabine Hoffmann, Janik Mutter, Mialy Rann, Martijn Sonnevelt, Lene Topp, Luisa Last & Christof Stückelberger; Illustration: Christof Stückelberger; Eawag; CC BY-NC 4.0.

Key features in a nutshell

The task

Step by Step guideline for researchers

Step 1: Know your audience

Step 2: Establish context and relevance

Tasks and resources: Brief description of the tasks and resources needed by scientists, knowledge exchange officers/research managers and policymakers

Sources and further reading

Key features in a nutshell

• Whether and how scientists should make policy recommendations is a contested issue; this exercise puts participants in the shoes of researchers who must decide whether to respond to a request from policymakers; it builds on the four ideal-typical roles put forward in Roger Pielke book, The Honest Broker
• The scenario appears simple at first glance, but it proves to be genuinely sophisticated once participants discuss the various options in small groups – positions that initially seem clear-cut often turn out to be harder to defend than expected
• The exercise takes about 30-60 minutes; it can be integrated into training on science for policy and is especially suited to workshops bringing together participants from different academic disciplines

How does the format work?

Step 1 (5–10 minutes): The workshop facilitator introduces the following scenario: participants are researchers and members of an interdisciplinary research group on healthy nutrition. The research group receives a request from the mayor’s office and must decide whether to accept it. The facilitator shares the scenario description, either as printed copies or electronically, and divides participants into groups of 3–5 people.

Step 2 (15–5 minutes): Each group discusses the following questions:

• Which researcher’s position do you find most convincing, and why?
• Would you accept the request from the mayor’s office? What conditions, if any, would you set? While the scenario appears to be quite simple, it turns out to be sophisticated once the participants discuss the various options in small groups; ask at least one person per group to take notes of the discussion and present the answers of the groups in the following plenary session
• Which positions correspond to Roger Pielke’s typology?

Using a second worksheet, groups then match Pielke’s four roles to the five researchers in the scenario by drawing connecting lines. Definitions of all four roles are provided directly on the accompanying worksheet, so no prior familiarity with Pielke’s book is required. Importantly, the matching is not one-to-one: a single role can apply to more than one researcher, and a researcher’s position can reflect more than one role. Groups note down a brief justification for each match. This task tends to generate the liveliest discussions since several researcher positions resist a clean fit.

Ask at least one person per group to take notes so the group’s discussion can be presented in the following plenary session.

Step 3 (10–25 minutes):

• Convene all participants in plenary and ask whether they would accept the request from the mayor’s office – by show of hands or using an anonymous digital polling tool, which tends to allow more candid responses on a contested question like this one
• Ask one group to share its responses with the others; ask the remaining groups to add any aspects not yet covered
• Ask groups which match in the matching exercise was most difficult to agree on and why; This question often reveals more about the four roles than the matching exercise itself, since it forces participants to articulate exactly where a researcher’s position becomes ambiguous.

Tasks and resources: Brief description of the tasks and resources needed by scientists, knowledge exchange officers/research managers and policymakers

Workshop facilitators

The facilitator prepares a slide explaining the exercise. They provide printed or electronic copies of both worksheets — the scenario and the matching exercise — divide participants into groups, keep time during the group discussion, and moderate the concluding plenary session.

Researchers or research managers as participants

Researchers or research managers take part in the group discussion and connect the positions of the researchers in the scenario to Pielke’s four roles, noting their reasoning for each match. One member per group presents the group’s findings; other members are welcome to add their own perspectives during the plenary discussion.

Policymakers

If policymakers take part in the workshop, they are invited to share their perspective on the request and on the conditions proposed by the groups — including whether such conditions would be realistic or acceptable from their point of view. They can also speak to their expectations regarding scientific expertise more broadly.

The worksheets are available below:

V_ov_fourrolefiveresearchers_worksheet_rmu_20260730

Sources and further reading

Pielke, Roger (2007), The Honest Broker. Making Sense of Science and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Do you want to share your experience in policy engagement? Do you think about contributing to the policy engagement toolkit? Feel free to contact Tome Sandevski via science-policy@pvw.uni-frankfurt.de

Key features in a nutshell

• This exercise invites participants to discuss the reasons for and against engaging with policymakers; while reasons such as impact, the politicization of expertise, and lack of resources and recognition tend to come up immediately; less obvious motivations such as the benefits of policy engagement for research itself, or the intrinsic rewards of the work are rarely mentioned; this quick, interactive exercise helps workshop participants surface and discuss their underlying assumptions regarding academic policy engagement
• The exercise activates participants in the opening minutes of the workshop, with positive effects on their engagement and participation throughout the session
• The exercise works equally well in in-person and in virtual workshop settings.

How does the format work?

An active audience is essential for a successful policy engagement workshop. It is equally important to surface the assumptions participants bring with them about what policy engagement is, why it matters, and what makes it difficult. This simple icebreaker achieves both goals in 10-20 minutes.

Step 1: Generate pro and con reasons

Divide participants into groups of two to four. Ask each group to discuss the following questions:

Cite four reasons why researchers should engage with policymakers; cite four reasons why they might choose not to.

In in-person workshops: provide cards and marker pens so groups can write down their answers – one reason per card.
In virtual workshops: use a tool like Mentimeter or a shared digital whiteboard.

Duration: 10 minutes

Step 2: Collect the answers

Ask one group to present their reasons; invite the other groups to add any reasons not yet mentioned.

In in-person workshops, ask groups to pin their cards to a pinboard. Take a photo of the results for documentation.
In virtual workshops, take a screenshot of the compiled answers.

Duration: 10 minutes

Step 3: Debrief

The answers can usually be grouped into the following categories. Facilitators should use these as a guide for the debrief discussion rather than as a fixed script.

Reasons in favor of policy engagement

Impact. Scientific evidence can improve the quality of policy decisions. Many researchers work on salient issues – health, energy, environment, climate, conflict, education – and want their findings to make a difference in the real world.

Giving back to society. Most research is funded by taxpayers. Researchers want to demonstrate the societal value of their work.

Access to funding. Commissioned research can be an important funding stream. Researchers may also engage with policymakers to raise awareness of their field and advocate for research budgets. This response is worth noting in the debrief: it shows that many participants do not yet distinguish between policy engagement and science advice on the one hand and lobbying, government affairs, and fundraising on the other. Making this distinction explicit is important, and this exercise therefore pairs well with a subsequent session on the differences between policy engagement and these related but distinct activities.

Benefits for research. Engaging with policymakers can help researchers gain new perspectives, identify emerging policy challenges, and generate new research questions or hypotheses. In surveys conducted among researchers participating in the joint policy engagement activities of the Rhine-Main Universities, around 60 percent report that engagement with policymakers has given them new ideas that benefit their own research. Policy engagement can also open doors to interviews with policymakers, access to data or internal documents, and partnerships with public institutions for research projects. This reason is rarely mentioned spontaneously, and it is worth drawing participants’ attention to it explicitly.

A rewarding experience. Policy engagement can be intrinsically motivating and genuinely enjoyable. This reason is almost never mentioned unprompted, and is worth addressing directly: researchers should only pursue policy engagement activities they find meaningful or at least tolerable. Intrinsic motivation is the most reliable predictor of sustained engagement. As a rule of thumb for participants: do not commit to activities you actively dislike!

Reasons against policy engagement

Lack of understanding of policymaking and policy engagement formats. Many researchers do not understand how policymaking works or which policy engagement formats exist beyond policy briefs, lengthy reports, or formal expert bodies. Workshops on policy engagement must therefore address both: how policy processes work, and the full range of formats available to researchers.

Perceived lack of impact. Workshop participants frequently report frustrating experiences: a 100-page commissioned report whose recommendations were ignored; a year’s work on an expert body that produced no policy change. Such experiences reflect a mismatch between researchers’ expectations and the realities of policymaking. This is often rooted in limited knowledge of how policy processes actually work and can be revisited productively when the workshop turns to explaining policymaking processes in more depth.

Lack of time and resources. Researchers face competing demands – research, teaching, administrative obligations – and often perceive policy engagement as time-consuming or expensive. This is a legitimate concern, but it is also a misconception worth addressing: policy engagement takes many forms, some of which require months of sustained effort, while others can be completed in a matter of hours or days.

Lack of recognition. While science communication and knowledge exchange are becoming increasingly valued in academic institutions, many researchers, particularly those doing fundamental research, remain concerned that engaging with policymakers may be seen as insufficiently academic. Recognition and reward systems for policy engagement are developing in many countries but remain underdeveloped in others.

Politicization of expertise. Many researchers worry about being associated with particular political parties or ideologies when taking public positions on policy issues. They fear being drawn into political debates or being held personally responsible for government decisions informed by their research. These concerns are reinforced by well-documented cases in which scientists were publicly attacked by politicians, media, or social media users for providing scientific evidence on contested issues.

Requirements from superiors or funding agencies. Funding agencies increasingly require projects to demonstrate policy impact. Institutional leaders sometimes ask researchers to produce policy publications or participate in policy events. While there may be good reasons for such requirements, they frequently generate frustration when researchers feel obliged to perform tasks they find meaningless or poorly suited to their expertise. Researchers in this situation should identify the policy engagement activities they are most likely to find meaningful and communicate clearly to their superiors about what they can realistically contribute. Where impact documentation is required, the goal should be to find activities that are both documentable and genuinely valued by the researcher.

Conclusions

The responses generated by this exercise will resurface throughout the workshop. Facilitators should note which reasons and which misconceptions appear most prominently in their group. They should use them as reference points when introducing subsequent topics such as policymaking processes, policy engagement formats, or the distinction between science advice and lobbying.

Tasks and resources: Brief description of the tasks and resources needed by scientists, knowledge exchange officers/research managers and policymakers

Workshop facilitators

Provide cards and marker pens for in-person workshops or set up a digital tool such as Mentimeter for virtual sessions. Communicate clearly at the outset that there are no right or wrong answers. The goal is to allow honest reflections to arise. Enforce the time limit: this is an icebreaker, not a full discussion, and should not exceed 20 minutes in total. Document the answers by photographing the pinboard or taking a screenshot.

Researchers, research managers, and other participants

Participants are encouraged to state their honest reasons for and against policy engagement without censoring themselves in search of the “right” answer. The exercise is most valuable when participants share genuine concerns and motivations.

Policymakers

If policymakers are present, they are invited to share their own perspective on why researchers should, or should not, engage with them. Facilitators can use this as an opportunity to contrast the researchers’ responses with those of the policymakers, often generating productive discussion.

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Do you want to share your experience in policy engagement? Do you think about contributing to the policy engagement toolkit? Feel free to contact Tome Sandevski via science-policy@pvw.uni-frankfurt.de

Key features in a nutshell

• This exercise helps participants identify the key elements of effectively presenting their research expertise to policymakers by analyzing a fictitious presentation from the perspective of a policymaker.
• By stepping into the shoes of a policymaker, participants experience firsthand why slide count, language, and content selection matter — and what a difference the right framing makes.
• Participants leave the exercise with a practical set of dos and don’ts for structuring, framing, and delivering research presentations to policy audiences.

How does the format work?

Step 1: Review the slides

Distribute an electronic or printed version of the fictitious presentation (LINK WILL FOLLOW) and ask participants to work through the slides using the following scenario:

You are working for a Member of the European Parliament. A friend of yours is a researcher who coordinates an EU project on sustainable public transportation in Europe.

The European Public Transportation Association has invited your friend to present the research findings from the EU project as well as policy recommendations for the future of sustainable public transportation in Europe at its policy conference in Brussels. The organizers made it very clear that the presentation must not exceed 10 minutes.

The conference will bring together 300 policymakers from the local, regional, national, and EU levels, as well as representatives from public transportation companies, civil society, and academia. Since your friend has never given a presentation to policymakers, he asks you for feedback on the draft version of his presentation.Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the presentation?”

Step 2: Test what stuck

After participants have reviewed the slides, ask them to close the presentation and answer the following questions from memory:

• Seventeen researchers are mentioned in the presentation. How many of their names do you remember?
• What do you remember about the four universities involved?
• Do you recall the numbers of students, staff, and research institutes mentioned?
• Do you remember the names of the predecessor projects of the SUSTRA(I)N project?

Most participants will struggle, and that is the point. Use their responses to open a discussion on why this information did not stick, and what that tells us about how research presentations are typically structured.

The fictitious presentation has 24 slides. The first 16 describe the project and consortium rather than presenting policy-relevant findings. That is far too many. Policymakers engage with researchers because of their expertise – not because their university has five departments and 32 research institutes.

• Start with three key messages you want the policymakers to remember. Structure your presentation around the key messages
• Use only 1-2 slides to briefly present your consortium, institution, or project

The presentation also relies heavily on acronyms that audiences outside the research community are unlikely to recognize. The slide-by-slide analysis typically surfaces the following issues, which facilitators can use to structure the debrief discussion:

Other slides also offer room for improvement:

• Slide 5: The four academic partners are described in detail, while the 14 practice partners are not named; when giving a presentation at a conference organized and attended by practitioners, practitioner partners should also be mentioned
• Slide 16: The eight work packages are presented, including the ones on theory and method development; interestingly, the work packages on long-term assessment of public infrastructure (WP6), perceptions of mobility in rural areas (WP7), and policy recommendations and practitioner training (WP8) are not mentioned in the remainder of the presentation
• Slide 19:

=> Dispense with slides on theory or methods that policymakers are very unlikely to understand

• Slide 18: When interacting with policymakers, researchers often complain about the lack of funding; sometimes, they do so before even mentioning their research findings, as in this case; while research funding is very important, the presented research project did not analyze research funding as such, and, therefore, complaining about the lack of research funding leaves a rude and unprofessional impression:
• It is perfectly fine for researchers to discuss research funding issues with policymakers, but they should not hijack events to do so. Researchers should arrange separate meetings with policymakers to discuss research funding. They should use formal channels, such as consultations or position papers, or through academic associations. Also, they should be transparent about funding from the outset rather than taking policymakers by surprise, which might have the opposite effect than the one intended.

Slide 20: While researchers should clearly present their findings and criticize policy outcomes, they should not use language that policymakers can receive as inappropriate or disrespectful. Also, having 32 acronyms on a slide is too much, even if most of them are known.

• Use respectful language when presenting critical research findings to policymakers.

Slide 21: The research project found that the government struggles with the long-term implementation of public transportation strategies and legal acts, especially during times of crisis. To ensure long-term implementation, the researchers recommend close cooperation between governing and opposition parties as well as earmarking a dedicated reserve for times of crisis. These recommendations are not realistic.

• Focus on policy recommendations

Step 3 (optional)

Ask participants to revise the presentation: reduce the number of slides and adjust the remaining ones to make the presentation more effective for a policy audience.

Step 4 (optional)

Ask participants to compile a list of ten dos and don’ts for presenting research to policymakers.

• The full exercise takes between 20 and 40 minutes, depending on how much discussion the debrief generates

Tasks and resources: Brief description of the tasks and resources needed by scientists, knowledge exchange officers/research managers, and policymakers

Workshop facilitators

Share the fictitious presentation with participants ahead of or at the start of the session. Guide participants through the scenario, facilitate the memory test in Step 2, and lead the debrief discussion. Familiarity with common pitfalls in science-policy communication is helpful but not required – the fictitious presentation is designed to make the issues visible without prior expertise.

Scientists and other participants

Review the fictitious presentation individually or in pairs. Contribute to the debrief discussion by sharing observations from the policymaker’s perspective. For Steps 3 and 4, participants revise the presentation and/or develop their own dos and don’ts list.

Policymakers

If policymakers are present, invite them to share what they look for in a research presentation – and what puts them off. Their perspective is often the most memorable part of the exercise and adds a dimension of authenticity that no facilitator can replicate.

Workshop Exercise — Giving Presentations to Policymaker

Scenario: You work for a Member of the European Parliament. One of your friends is a researcher who coordinates an EU project on sustainable public transportation in Europe. Your friend has been invited to present the project’s research findings and policy recommendations at a conference in Brussels.

See the full presentation

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Do you want to share your experience in policy engagement? Do you think about contributing to the policy engagement toolkit? Feel free to contact Tome Sandevski via science-policy@pvw.uni-frankfurt.de

Key features in a nutshell

• This exercise helps participants identify policy areas relevant to their research by exploring key policy documents such as government programs or sectoral strategies
• By reading the documents in full or using the table of contents and search function participants practice an efficient, targeted approach to navigating lengthy policy documents

How does the format work?

Most local, regional, or national governments in OECD countries, the European Commission, international organizations, and political parties publish documents that set out their priorities: government programs, strategic plans, work programs, or party platforms. These documents are essential reading for researchers who want to engage with policymakers effectively: they reveal which issues are on the political agenda, what language policymakers use to describe them, and where potential entry points for science-policy engagement exist. This exercise introduces participants to this type of document and asks them to map their own research expertise onto current policy priorities.

Step 1: Choose your document

Ask participants to select a policy priority document relevant to their institutional or national context. Depending on the workshop audience, facilitators may preselect two to four documents or invite participants to choose their own.

Step 2: Navigate efficiently

Participants can read the documents in full if they want to. Alternatively, ask them to only use two tools: the table of contents to get an overview of the document’s structure and the search function to look up terms related to their research.

Ask participants to reflect on the following questions as they browse:

• Do you find topics in this document on which you have research expertise?
• Which policy issues are of particular interest to you?
• What language does the document use to describe the issues you work on? Does it match the terminology you use in your research? Do you understand the terminology?
• Are there topics you expected to find that are absent or unexpected topics that are prominently featured?

Step 3: Debrief

Facilitate a short plenary discussion. Useful questions include:

• Where did you find the strongest connections to your own research?
• Were there any surprises, topics that were more prominent or less prominent than you expected?
• Did the language used in the document differ from how you would describe the same issues in an academic context? What does that tell you about how to communicate your research to policymakers?

The debrief typically takes 10–20 minutes, and productive conversations about the gap between academic and policy language often arise Steps 1 and 2 can be sent to participants in advance, with Step 3 conducted as a plenary discussion during the workshop. The full exercise – including the debrief – takes between 30 and 60 minutes, depending on group size and the depth of discussion.

Tasks and resources: Brief description of the tasks and resources needed by scientists, knowledge exchange officers/research managers, and policymakers

Workshop facilitators

Select two to four documents in advance that are most relevant to the workshop audience and share them with participants before the session if possible. For international audiences, prepare a short overview of the types of policy priority documents that exist at national, EU, and international levels. Facilitate the debrief discussion, paying particular attention to differences in language between academic and policy documents –  this is often the most productive thread.

Scientists and other participants

Browse the selected document using the table of contents and search function, reflect on the questions in Step 2, and contribute to the debrief. Participants who already engage with policymakers are encouraged to reflect on whether they have previously used documents like these to prepare for meetings or to identify relevant contacts.

Policymakers

If policymakers are present, invite them to share how they themselves use documents such as coalition agreements or work programs in their day-to-day work – and how they would expect researchers to engage with them. Their perspective on the gap between political language and research language is often illuminating.

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Do you want to share your experience in policy engagement? Do you think about contributing to the policy engagement toolkit? Feel free to contact Tome Sandevski via science-policy@pvw.uni-frankfurt.de

Key features in a nutshell

• This exercise helps participants understand how policymaking institutions are structured by exploring the organizational charts of ministries, the European Commission, international organizations, and other public bodies.
• By mapping their own research expertise onto the internal structure of a ministry or directorate-general, participants identify concrete entry points for science-policy engagement.
• Rather than overwhelming participants with theoretical lectures on governance, this method uses a practical, discovery-led approach where scientists look up real-world organizational structures.

How does the format work?

Organizational charts are one of the most underused tools in science-policy engagement. They reveal not just what a ministry or directorate-general works on, but how it is structured:  which units exist, what they cover, and where the interfaces between policy areas lie. For researchers trying to identify the right contact within a large institution, an organizational chart is an essential starting point.

This exercise asks participants to explore the organizational charts of policymaking institutions relevant to their own research and to compare what they find with what they expected.

Step 1: Choose your institution

Ask participants to identify a policymaking institution relevant to their research expertise and visit its website. Participants can choose ministries at the national or, where applicable, regional level, directorates general of the European Commission, and international organizations.

Step 2: Predict before you explore

Before looking at the organizational charts, ask participants to write down five policy issues they expect the institution to work on. For example, a researcher focusing on energy might expect to find units covering renewable energy, nuclear energy, electricity grids, and energy taxation.

This prediction step is important: it activates prior assumptions and makes the comparison in Step 3 more revealing.

Step 3: Explore the organizational chart

Ask participants to look up the organizational chart of their chosen institution and compare it with their predictions:

• Which of the policy issues you expected are reflected in the chart?
• Which topics did you not expect to find?
• Are there units whose remit is unclear from the name alone?
• Compare the organizational structure of a regional or national ministry with the organizational chart of a directorate general of the European Commission or international organization: What differences do you notice in how they are structured?

Step 4: Debrief

Facilitate a plenary discussion. Discuss the questions asked in step 3. Additional helpful questions are:

• What surprised you most about the organizational chart?
• Where would you direct a policy brief or an event invitation based on what you found?
• Did the structure help you identify a specific unit or contact person you had not previously considered?

The debrief typically takes 15–30 minutes and often generates lively discussion. The full exercise – including the prediction step and debrief – takes between 30 and 60 minutes, depending on group size and the depth of discussion. Steps 1–3 can be sent to participants in advance, with Step 4 conducted as a plenary discussion during the workshop.

Tasks and resources: Brief description of the tasks and resources needed by scientists, knowledge exchange officers/research managers, and policymakers

Workshop facilitators

Prepare a short overview of how the relevant institutions are structured (e.g., the standard structure of a German federal ministry or the DG system of the European Commission) to share with participants before or during Step 3. Facilitate the debrief discussion. No specialist knowledge of the institutions is required– the exercise is designed to surface participants’ own discoveries.

Scientists and other participants

Identify a relevant policymaking institution, make their predictions in Step 2, explore the organizational chart in Step 3, and contribute to the debrief. Participants who already have contacts within a ministry or directorate general of the European Commission are encouraged to reflect on where exactly those contacts sit within the institutional structure and what that tells them about the scope of their existing network.

Policymakers

If policymakers are present, invite them to comment on how their own institution’s organizational chart reflects – or not – day-to-day realities. In practice, formal structures and informal working relationships often diverge, and policymakers can offer invaluable insight into how decisions actually flow within an institution.

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Do you want to share your experience in policy engagement? Do you think about contributing to the policy engagement toolkit? Feel free to contact Tome Sandevski via science-policy@pvw.uni-frankfurt.de

Making events appealing to policymakers

Summary: Key features in a nutshell

• This exercise helps scientists and knowledge-exchange officers understand the difference between academic and policy-oriented events.
• Policymakers need event descriptions and invitations that clearly demonstrate why attending the event would benefit them.

How does the format work?

Step 1: Share the two letters of invitation for a fictitious conference in Brussels with the workshop participants. Provide the following instruction: “You are working for a member of the European Parliament, and your boss has received two invitations to take part in panel discussions in Brussels. Unfortunately, both are scheduled for the same time. Your boss asks you to review the invitations and to recommend the one most likely to benefit her in terms of access to policy-relevant research, stakeholder dialogue, and visibility. Please read both invitations. Which one do you recommend? What aspects of the invitations do you find convincing? What aspects could be improved?”

Step 2: Ask the participants to read the two invitations. They have three minutes to do so.

Step 3: Ask the participants to identify the differences between the two invitations. What do they appreciate about the structure of each event? Which event is likely to be more beneficial for the MEP?

Invitation 1: Tis one has several weaknesses. First, it is too long, making it difficult to locate key information such as the date and venue. Second, it reads like a summary of an academic conference program clearly aimed at a scientific audience, featuring numerous acronyms and references to scholars who may be well known within their fields but are unlikely to be recognised outside academia. Third, the presence of major publishing houses and the launch of a new dataset may be compelling reasons for researchers to attend but are unlikely to attract policymakers. Fourth, a panel composed of three academics and one policymaker is not particularly appealing to a political audience. Finally, the event is held in Vilvoorde, which, while only around 11 km from the European Parliament, still takes approximately 30 minutes to reach by train or car — meaning the MEP would need to set aside at least an hour just for travel.

Invitation 2: The second is more effective for several reasons. First, it is concise and presents key information — date, venue, and purpose — immediately. Second, it makes clear from the outset why the MEP has been contacted personally. Third, the panel features one researcher with demonstrable policy experience as a member of an OECD expert group, alongside two representatives of prominent associations. Fourth, the invitation indicates that the event is expected to be well attended and likely to attract media coverage — both of which matter to policymakers. Finally, the venue is within walking distance of the European Parliament.

Step 4: Ask participants to identify and write down the features that make events appealing to policymakers.

For groups of up to ten participants, it is recommended that the findings be discussed in plenary using flip charts or interactive tools such as Mentimeter. For larger groups, participants should be split into breakout groups and given cards and pens to record their answers, which can then be shared and discussed in plenary.

Possible challenges and how to address them

Both invitations represent idealized types. While venues close to the European Parliament are advantageous, they may not always be affordable. Similarly, organizers cannot guarantee high attendance from prominent participants. It is therefore entirely reasonable to organize purely academic events when the resources or capacity to make them relevant for policy are not available.

Tasks and resources: Brief description of the tasks and resources needed by scientists, knowledge exchange officers/research managers, and policymakers

Workshop facilitators

Facilitators are responsible for distributing printed or electronic versions of the invitations to participants. They should familiarize themselves with both invitations and reflect on the differences between the two events in advance.

Scientists and other participants

Participants read both invitation letters and take part in the subsequent discussion. The exercise and discussion together require between 10 and 20 minutes.

Policymakers

If policymakers are present, the facilitator should involve them in the discussion and invite them to share what criteria an event must meet for them to attend.

See invitation letters_rmu

Sources and further reading

Please add URL or publications, if applicable.

See also contributions on the following issues

The editors of the toolkit will add the information in this section.

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Do you want to share your experience in policy engagement? Do you think about contributing to the policy engagement toolkit? Feel free to contact Tome Sandevski via science-policy@pvw.uni-frankfurt.de

Putting Yourself in the Shoes of a Busy Policymaker

Key features in a nutshell

• This exercise simulates the role of a parliamentary assistant to help researchers understand what busy policymakers undergo when reading policy publications.
• It can be used in workshops or self-learning contexts: participants must identify the key messages of five policy publications within ten minutes.
• The exercise highlights the importance of visual clarity, easily identifiable key messages, plain language, and visual elements such as bullet points, highlighted headers, tables, and graphs.

How does the format work?

Step 1: Select five publications between two and twenty pages each. Many researchers struggle to appreciate what it feels like to read publications on unfamiliar topics, so it is important that the publications cover a range of subject areas (e.g., environment, climate change, health, international security, education, AI). Choose two well-structured, accessible policy briefs that present their key messages up front —I recommend the policy briefs of theOECD, E3G, or the International Crisis Group.

Choose three other publications such as academic publications, which are more difficult to overview, because they lack elements like summaries, bullet points, or visualizations. Publications featuring a lot of body text, methods sections, and academic jargon are ideally suited for this exercise.

Step 2: Distribute either printed or electronic versions of the publications to participants along with the following instructions:

“You are working as an assistant to a member of parliament, who has a full schedule of committee meetings, interviews, and panel discussions today and tomorrow. Your boss has received five publications by post and needs topical expertise on the issues they cover. She has to take a phone call lasting approximately ten minutes and leaves the publications on your desk, asking you to brief her on their key messages once she is done. You have ten minutes to browse the publications. You are NOT allowed to use AI to summarize them. Can you identify the key messages within ten minutes? Which publications made it easy to do so — and which were difficult to review?”

Step 3: To add a degree of time pressure, announce the remaining time every two minutes. Participants must stop after ten minutes. Afterwards, ask them whether they were able to identify the key messages in each publication, and which features helped or hindered them.

Features that tend to help include summaries at the beginning, bullet points, meaningful headers and subheadings, tables, and clear, easy-to-read charts.

Features that tend to hinder include dense body text, generic or vague headers, jargon, and lengthy theory or methods sections.

For groups of up to ten participants, it is recommended to discuss the findings in plenary, using flip charts or interactive tools such as Mentimeter. For larger groups, participants should be split into breakout groups and given cards and pens to record their answers, which can then be shared and discussed in plenary.

Possible challenges and how to address them

Participants may find the exercise stressful or become frustrated when trying to identify key messages in publications on unfamiliar topics. This is an intentional phenomenon: policymakers rarely have much time and are regularly expected to engage with expert publications across a wide range of subjects.

Some participants may point out that policymakers increasingly use AI tools to summarize publications — a valid observation. But even AI-generated summaries can run to several pages. Moreover, printed publications remain in use in many countries and institutions.

Tasks and resources: Brief description of the tasks and resources needed by scientists, knowledge exchange officers/research managers, and policymakers

Workshop facilitators

Facilitators are responsible for selecting the five publications and making them available — either in print or electronically. They should read all five publications themselves before the workshop. Preparation will require approximately 60 to 120 minutes; conducting the exercise will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Scientists and other participants

Participants browse the publications to identify their key messages and take part in the subsequent discussion. The exercise and discussion together require between 20 and 40 minutes.

Policymakers

If policymakers are present, the facilitator should involve them in the discussion and invite them to share what criteria a publication must meet for them to engage with it.

Sources and further reading

Please add URL or publications, if applicable.

See also contributions on the following issues

The editors of the toolkit will add the information in this section.

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Do you want to share your experience in policy engagement? Do you think about contributing to the policy engagement toolkit? Feel free to contact Tome Sandevski via science-policy@pvw.uni-frankfurt.de

Introduction: What is the format about?

– A role-playing game puts participants in the situation of making decisions in a political context

– The idea is to put researchers, policymakers, and sometimes representatives of civil society or media in a situation to see how science can (or cannot) influence policy choices

How does the format work?

An idea for a role-playing game where researchers and policymakers swap roles for a day was conceived to better understand the real dynamics between research and policymaking.

Faced with challenges such as a health crisis, an environmental disaster, or a sensitive energy issue, participants can learn to navigate between the need to use scientific data and economic, social, and political pressure.

The aim is to experience the complexity of the dialogue between science and policy and to better understand the challenges of decision making in a fictional situation.

Participants are assigned different roles than their own in real life:

either as researchers whose role is to analyze data and advise policymakers by providing them with clear and usable recommendations

or policymakers whose role is to make choices based on scientific advice as well as on economic, social, and media concerns.

Media and civil society actors (depending on the version of the game) add a level of complexity by influencing public opinion and exerting pressure on decision makers.

The game takes place in several stages, with new information being introduced gradually, requiring participants to adjust their strategies. It highlights the challenges of communication between researchers and policymakers, managing uncertainty, and the necessary compromises in decision making.

Challenges and how to address them

Of course, there are many challenges to this complex role-playing game.

Our approach involves a service provider who creates role-playing scenarios from a sociological perspective to help participants understand each other’s roles and responsibilities.   But preparing the game still requires a significant amount of work, particularly the preparation of a consistent scenario and situations that are appropriate for the setting without being too realistic, so as to create arguments.

Balance management: the different theatrical acts must be stimulating, and the scenes played by the actors must maintain the interest of the different participants who do not know each other.

At the same time, rather than exacerbating areas of conflict, this role-playing game should teach its participants how, for example, a politician plays the researcher and vice versa.

Tasks and resources

This role-playing game is run by an external partner that handles the learning side of role-playing. Setting up a role-playing game on this scale is, however, a significant organizational task for the knowledge officers.

Furthermore, to ensure the game runs smoothly and that it has the desired effect, it is important not to reveal too much about the day and learning expectations. It is therefore challenging to get researchers and policymakers to set aside time for this.

Examples

Scientific-Political Cooperation Workshops Day (ACooSP) September 12, 2023, in Dijon, organized by the University of Burgundy Franche-Comté in partnership with INGSA.

Sources and further reading

The International Network for Government Science Advice (INGSA) regularly offers this type of workshop to help researchers and decision-makers work better together.

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Do you want to share your experience in policy engagement? Do you think about contributing to the policy engagement toolkit? Feel free to contact Tome Sandevski via science-policy@pvw.uni-frankfurt.de