Lost in Translation: How Researchers Lose Policymakers in 24 Slides

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.

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