Expectation vs. Reality: A Researcher’s Guide to Handling Frustration with Policymakers

Key features in a nutshell

• Manage your expectations about your possible impact, timelines, and feedback
• Understand how policymaking works is a key prerequisite for avoiding frustration
• Communicate and build relationships proactively to avoid being misquoted and to create long-term connections
• Reflect on your engagement and give policymakers regular feedback

What is the issue?

If you talk to researchers about policy engagement a familiar theme comes up: frustration. Below are the frustrations I hear most often and what you can actually do about them.

A quick disclaimer: none of the quotes below are verbatim. They’re composites of things I’ve heard in one form or another over the years of talking to hundreds of researchers and running workshops on policy engagement.

• ‘I don’t see any impact’

You’ve heard it – maybe you’ve said it yourself: ‘I wrote a 100-page commissioned report for the ministry and clearly showed that X is a problem. And then … nothing happened.’ Or: ‘I spent over a year on an expert body. We came up with a dozen solid recommendations, but none of them got implemented.’ Or the softer, more deflated version: ‘The policymakers didn’t seem particularly interested in my findings. I think they’d already made up their minds. So, I’m not sure why they even asked.’

What you can do
First, remember that, in most cases, policymakers  under no obligation to follow scientific expertise. There’s an important difference between evidence-based and evidence-informed policymaking – policymakers operate under political, financial, and legal constraints that scientific evidence simply doesn’t touch. A recommendation might be perfectly sound and still be politically unpopular.

And ‘no visible impact’ doesn’t mean ‘no impact’. Think about smoking: the scientific evidence on its health effects was solid by the 1950s, but it took policymakers around the world decades to act on it. That doesn’t mean the early evidence was wasted – it just means impact is often slow, indirect, and hard to trace back to a single report or meeting.

Second, policymaking timelines can simply work against you. A government commissions an expert body, the body reports back two years later – except by then there’s a new government that isn’t especially interested in your findings. Or, a hearing is legally required before a bill passes, but by the time you’re in the room, minds are already made up. None of this is personal. It’s how the machine works. The more you understand policymaking processes, the less these moments will sting.

And sometimes ‘no impact’ is really about something else: invisibility. Your input quietly shapes a paragraph in the final policy paper, but your name never appears anywhere near it – no acknowledgement, no citation, nothing you can point to. That’s a real and valid frustration, and it’s worth raising directly with whoever commissioned your input, even if it rarely gets fixed retroactively.

• ‘They cherry-picked the one line that fit their agenda’

Sometimes the frustration isn’t that your research gets ignored, it’s the opposite: it gets used but selectively so. A single data point, a caveat-free soundbite, or a conclusion lifted out of its context ends up in a press release, speech, or website. It can feel like your work is being weaponised for an argument you never intended to make.

What you should do
Understand that policymakers aren’t reading your work the way peer reviewers do; they’re looking for a clear, usable takeaway, and nuance rarely survives that translation. You can reduce the risk (not eliminate it) by being proactive about framing: write a plain-language summary yourself, flag the caveats you really don’t want dropped, and offer a one-line ‘if you quote one thing, quote this’ takeaway. If a selective quote does happen and it materially distorts your findings, it’s fair to reach out – directly or via a follow-up statement – and set the record straight, calmly, and without assuming bad faith. More often than not, it’s less about ideology and more about compression: complex findings getting flattened into a single line because that’s what fits in a press release.

• ‘Policymakers just don’t get it – they lack even the basics’

Researchers are often genuinely surprised that policymakers don’t know what – from a researcher’s perspective – feels like basic vocabulary: exponential growth, the laws of thermodynamics or how ‘significant’ is not the same as ‘important’. Terms get lost in translation, too: ‘short-term’ might mean decades to a climate scientist or historian but days or weeks to a policymaker.

What you can do
Remember that policymakers come from diverse backgrounds; some might share your discipline, most won’t. And here’s an example of reframing: interdisciplinary research teams often need months to develop a shared vocabulary among scientists. Why would it be any different for policymakers?

Thus, invest in simplifying your language. Take a science communication course, ask your press office for feedback or run your text through tools like the De-Jargonizer or Readable.com. Talk about your research with people outside your field regularly. And ask policymakers directly for honest feedback on how you’re coming across.

One more thing: don’t assume policymakers know your field’s landmarks. They’ve probably heard of Nature and Science, a handful of elite universities, and the scientists who show up in the media. The Journal of xyz Quarterly – no matter how prestigious in your world – likely means nothing to them. They probably do not know the big names in your field. The same applies to the issue of time constraints in research institutions, how research projects work, or what terms like ‘PI’ stand for.

• ‘They expect the impossible from me’

There’s often a real gap between what policymakers ask for and what research can actually deliver. This shows up in a few different ways. First, some questions sound simple to policymakers but are almost impossible for researchers to answer with a Yes or No: “Do unhealthy diets cause cancer?” or “Do tax cuts reduce unemployment?” Real-world outcomes rarely have a single cause, and most research findings come with genuine uncertainty attached – something that doesn’t always translate into a soundbite-friendly answer.

Second, questions about the future are just as tricky: “When will the next flood happen?” or “Will China invade Taiwan in the next few years?” Research can identify risks, trends, and probabilities, but it can’t offer certainty about events that haven’t happened yet.

Third, there’s the jump from findings to recommendations: “You found that people who commute by bike are healthier than those who drive or take public transport. So what policy would you recommend?” Solid research doesn’t always translate neatly into a specific policy option; that step usually involves knowledge about policy priorities and trade-offs that go beyond what the data alone can tell you.

Fourth, policymakers sometimes ask for fast turnarounds without realising how research actually works: “Can you analyse the impact of last month’s heatwave on public transport, within the next two weeks?” Rigorous analysis takes time, and that mismatch in expectations can become a real source of friction.

What to do:
When you’re asked a question like this, explain clearly what your research can and can’t tell. Communicate uncertainty honestly rather than glossing over it, and, above all, stay patient. Policymakers usually aren’t testing you; more often, they simply don’t know how research works, and a calm, clear explanation goes a long way.

• ‘I honestly have no idea what they’re talking about’

Policymakers reference legislation, court rulings, key documents, or events you’ve never heard of. You might not be familiar with the actors or processes involved, and policymakers think about legal and economic angles that may not even be on your radar as a scientist. Even well-prepared researchers can get lost because a lot of what policymakers know is tacit knowledge, the kind you only pick up by being in the room.

And yes, policymakers have their own jargon too. Spend time in Brussels and you’ll be drowning in acronyms: DG, MFF, CAP, Acquis. I once sat in a meeting in a federal ministry in Berlin where someone said, “During the last LP, Schmidt wanted Directorate 4 to focus on …” It took me a while to figure out LP meant Legislaturperiode (legislative period), who Schmidt was, and what Directorate 4 actually did.

What you can do
Unless policy analysis is your day job, it’s completely normal to feel lost sometimes, even political scientists and legal scholars struggle with this. You don’t need to memorise organisational charts to have a good conversation with a policymaker. If you’re new to the field, get an overview by skimming key policy documents or organisational charts beforehand. And it’s absolutely fine to admit you’re new, policymakers generally respect that more than a bluff. Ask questions, always. If you’re invited to a policy event, ask your hosts for a briefing beforehand. Tacit knowledge only comes from talking to people , so make informal one-on-one conversations with policymakers a habit, not a rare occurrence.

• ‘Appointments get cancelled all the time – like my time doesn’t matter’

Colleagues in Brussels tell me there’s basically a 50/50 chance that an MEP cancels their panel appearance two hours before it starts. Another researcher told me how he learned that a minister cancelled a meeting while he was already on the train to the capital. This happened twice within two months. Meanwhile, the same researchers are sometimes asked to produce a thorough analysis of a breaking policy issue with just a few days’ notice.

Policymakers – especially MPs and senior decision makers – are dealing with schedules that get reshuffled by events completely outside their control. And to be fair, most of them have no idea that researchers are juggling teaching, administration, and research deadlines just as tightly.

What you can do
When organising an event, always ask policymakers to name a substitute in case they can’t make it. Do the same for one-on-one meetings. Rather than sinking four hours into preparing for a meeting with a minister that gets cancelled last-minute, ask in advance whether a policy officer could step in instead. Be upfront about your own scheduling constraints. Offer virtual meetings as a fallback. And it’s completely fair to explain that very short-notice requests for expertise are hard for you to fulfil too.

• ‘My contacts keep changing; I feel like I’m starting from scratch every time’

High turnover is simply a feature of democratic institutions. Members of Parliament lose their seats or switch committees. New governments bring in new ministry leadership. Career civil servants rotate units every few years. It’s exhausting to feel like you’re rebuilding relationships from zero again and again.

What you can do
Accept turnover as a structural feature, not a personal setback. Build relationships across the political spectrum, including with opposition parties, who may be in government next. Cultivate good working relationships with staffers, parliamentary group advisors, and policy officers, they tend to stick around longer than the politicians they support, and they carry institutional memory with them. Keep factsheets and policy brief, which you can quickly update if need be.

• “I wanted the decision maker; I got fobbed off with a low-level staffer’

First, this one usually reveals a common misconception. Staffers and policy officers are not ‘low-level’ but often the people with the greatest expertise on a specific issue – more than their superiors – and they’re the ones who synthesise scientific findings for the people above them. Second: if a decision maker turns down a meeting and sends someone else, it doesn’t mean they’re not interested. If they truly didn’t care, they wouldn’t send a representative at all.

What you can do

Appreciate the fact that a representative was sent on the decision maker’s behalf – engage with them properly and keep them in the loop. And if you’re inviting a decision maker to an event, be realistic about fit: does the role you’re offering (speaker, panelist, silent attendee) match their priorities? Is it a 20-minute slot or a two-day commitment? Where is it – the capital, their constituency, somewhere else entirely? And is it during a sitting week or recess? Getting these details right massively improves your odds.

• ‘Radio silence after the meeting – they never follow up’

Again: policymakers are busy. Silence after a meeting doesn’t mean disinterest.

What you can do
Follow up yourself! A few weeks or months later, reach out and say you’d like to continue the conversation, maybe you have new findings, or there’s a recent policy development worth discussing. Make it a habit to tell policymakers, right from your first meeting, that you’d like to stay in touch. And don’t take it personally if there is no follow-up meeting; their priorities shift constantly, and their calendar might simply not allow it.

• ‘They listen to the media, NGOs, and think tanks more than to scientists’

It can be baffling – even insulting – for scientists when policymakers reference a business association’s report, an NGO campaign, a consultancy’s analysis, or a tabloid headline instead of ‘proper’ scientific evidence.

What you can do
Scientific expertise is one source of knowledge among many for policymakers, not necessarily the most important one. Different actors play different roles in the ecosystem: think tanks and consultancies can turn policy analysis around far faster than academic institutions ever could. NGOs, trade unions, and business associations can mobilise and campaign in ways researchers simply can’t. Instead of feeling sidelined, follow the key NGOs, think tanks, and media outlets in your field: your findings can reach policymakers indirectly through them. Treat these actors as channels for your message, not competitors for attention.

• ‘They don’t show up to our policy events or use our knowledge exchange products!’

Scientists pour weeks or months into organising a policy event or into developing a knowledge exchange product like a policy publication series, an interactive website, an app, a simulation exercise, a fellowship, a placement scheme, an expert hotline, and policymakers simply don’t show up, or never end up using it.

What you can do

First, validate demand before building. Policymakers are flooded daily with position papers, event invitations, and other information. Before investing significant time and budget into developing apps, simulation games, fellowship schemes, or complex portals, ask your target group what they actually need and how much time they have. Involving policymakers early in the planning process provides crucial feedback on content, length, and format.

Second, prioritise targeted communication over mass outreach. Avoid generic mass emails or mailing: they are usually filtered out immediately. Map out relevant parliamentary committees, ministerial units, or party officials, and tailor your invitation or product directly to their current agenda. Explain clearly and concisely what specific insight they gain by attending the event or using the product. Following up with a brief phone call or personalised message takes time, but it is far more effective than spending months on an app that no policymakers use.

Third, join forces with established actors. If your institution is new to policy engagement or lacks direct channels to decision makers, partner with organisations that already have a proven track record (e.g., research networks, think tanks, NGOs, foundations). Joint events or joint formats like co-authored policy publications or dialogue formats tend to draw in policymakers far more effectively than going it alone.

• ‘I mentioned I needed funding, and nothing came of it’

Sometimes researchers engage with policymakers, partly hoping this will open the door to funding, and end up disappointed when that funding doesn’t materialise.

What you can do

Separate policy engagement from fundraising. Policy engagement is about mutual learning and evidence exchange, not direct grant acquisition. Most individual policymakers or ministries do not hand out research grants directly outside established funding programmes (e.g., national research agencies or EU frameworks). Approach policy conversations with the goal of providing value rather than seeking financial backing. Do not camouflage fundraising as policy engagement.

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

Sources and further reading:

De-Jargonizer, scienceandpublic.com

Readable, readable.com

Hemingway Editor, hemingwayapp.com

Lloyed, James (2016), So you want to change policy? Six steps for academics looking to achieve policy change, LSE Blogs, accessed on 05 August 2026.

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