Science Sparring: Policy Red Teaming Developed in the Finnish Academy of Science and Letters

Summary

• Policy red teaming through facilitated discussions where researchers review and comment on early policy drafts from the perspective of scientific evidence and expertise
• Emphasizes multidisciplinarity, making it suitable in particular for complex systemic policy topics, where identifying interdependencies between policy issues is crucial
• Prioritizes policy relevance by clearly defining the knowledge need and anchoring discussions to specific policy problems
• Knowledge brokers enable the process by building trust between participants and making participation easy for both researchers and policymakers
• Validated at the national level through co-development and testing with eight Finnish ministries, with successful pilots conducted at regional and municipal levels

Description of the format

Science Sparring strengthens the evidence base of policy development by bringing researchers and policymakers together at the critical early stage, when meaningful adjustments are still feasible. It is carefully designed by knowledge brokers, making participation for both policymakers and researchers easy and time-efficient.

The core methodology of Science Sparring centers on policy red teaming (see, e.g., Zhang & Gronwall, 2020). Essentially, this means that researchers review and comment on early policy draft documents put forward by policymakers. The process simulates an adversarial science–policy environment, but in a constructive setting designed to generate insights relevant for policy.

A key role in Science Sparring is played by preparatory documents, such as background papers, working group notes, draft texts and impact assessment materials. In the discussions, scientists review and comment on these boundary documents from the perspective of scientific evidence and expertise.

The strength of the approach lies in its ability to bring to the surface blind spots and assumptions that might otherwise go unexamined. By creating a controlled “stress test” for early drafts, Science Sparring can be utilized to reveal known unknowns and unknown knowns. Indeed, early interventions in the drafting process through the lens of scientific expertise can help in uncovering

• missing perspectives that require further review and scrutiny
• risks or side costs relating to the policy means
• feasibility of policy goals and solutions
• problematic framing of concepts or assumptions about causality
• interdependencies requiring a broadened scope of consultations

The development of the method started after conversations with policymakers, during which it was recognized that new interactive models to support science–policy collaboration are needed. Since 2020, the model has been developed and tested through collaborative pilots with eleven organizations in Finland, eight of which are ministries. Developing the model in collaboration with ministries has helped validate the model and fine-tune its core elements.

While the model does not yet have formal legal standing, the Finnish Government Report on the Future (2019–2023)  recommends wider adoption of Science Sparring in ministries’ policy preparation processes.

Most Science Sparring processes begin with a knowledge need identified by policymakers. While this policy-driven initiation is not mandatory, it helps ensure policymakers’ commitment to and engagement in the process. When researchers propose Science Sparring processes, knowledge brokers typically invest more effort and expertise in connecting these proposals to ongoing policy processes.

The different stages of Science Sparring

• Defining the knowledge need: The process begins by defining the precise knowledge needs and factors influencing these needs (such as political conflicts). Knowledge brokers facilitate this process in close collaboration with the policymakers in ministries. Simultaneously, the goals of the Sparring session are clarified with the ministry (or another knowledge user), including the timeframe, final output, and boundary object. A partnership plan is written that documents the agreed knowledge needs, objectives, and logistical arrangements.
• Participant mapping: Knowledge brokers identify an optimal multidisciplinary group of researchers (typically 4–10 participants). Researchers do not need to be affiliated with the Finnish Academy of Science and Letters; instead, knowledge brokers look for the best experts on the topic. Often, selected researchers are affiliated with a wide range of universities and research institutions. Best practice involves discussing which academic disciplines should be included with the knowledge user to ensure the Sparring session meets its objectives. Personal contact and briefing of both civil servants and researchers about the Sparring format is essential for successful dialogue.
• Preparation: This includes formulating workshop questions, ideally in collaboration with experts on the subject in ministries. These questions should be given to the researchers in advance so that they also know what is expected of them.
• Workshops: The workshops are designed to create an environment of trust between researchers and policymakers. Knowledge brokers design the format, facilitate discussions, and make sure everything runs smoothly. Generally, the format consists of short introductory presentations (including goals and ground rules for the day), followed by group discussions around the boundary object. Depending on the knowledge need, the Sparring session can consist of one or multiple workshops that usually last between three to six hours.
• Final output: Those initiating the Science Sparring process typically require a clear final output that synthesizes different types of knowledge. The specific requirements of the final output must be carefully considered throughout the documentation process of workshop content. Unless otherwise specified, the final output is always published to increase the transparency of the process. As knowledge brokers are responsible for consolidating the final output, it is always validated with the researchers to ensure that it does not include any flawed interpretations of the conversations.

Challenges

Closed setting | Science Sparring requires an explorative space where there are also opportunities for tangents in the interaction. This becomes difficult when there are third parties (e.g., stakeholders and interest groups) present as conversations can shift quickly from constructive exploration to adversarial public performance. While the closed nature of these sessions is necessary for candid dialogue, it creates transparency obligations. These can be addressed by, for example, publishing both the outcomes and participant list, and encouraging knowledge brokers to openly document their role in the process.

Trust | The critical framing integrated in Science Sparring demands exceptionally high trust among participants. Policymakers in charge of the legislative drafting must be willing to open their early drafts and expose their early thinking, including potential flaws and knowledge gaps. Without mutual understanding that criticism serves as a tool for better policy, interactions can quickly turn destructive rather than constructive.

Resource intensiveness | The process and its planning, particularly in defining the knowledge need, can be quite substantial. Knowledge brokers should manage this planning and ensure that researchers’ time commitment is kept to a minimum to maximize their quality engagement and motivation to participate.

Optimal group size | Workshop size requires careful management. Groups exceeding 20 participants often suffer from cancellations and reduced engagement. A more compact group size facilitates higher-quality dialogue and more meaningful exchanges between participants.

Managing hierarchies and existing tensions | Existing hierarchies between participants can undermine the open exchange that Science Sparring requires. Knowledge brokers must actively identify these dynamics during planning and use structured dialogue techniques to manage these tensions.

Tasks and resources

• Knowledge brokers: Knowledge brokers facilitate the process and enable open discussions. Their role as expert facilitators is essential from early need identification to facilitation as they clarify the knowledge need, identify suitable participants and brief them, prepare the workshop structure and preparatory materials, facilitate discussions, and coordinate the final output.
• Policymakers: Policymakers’ motivation is crucial for success. Effective Science Sparring sessions are usually demand-driven, initiated by policymakers with existing knowledge needs. Policymakers should remain open and actively participate throughout the process as engagement level directly correlates with the value gained. Most importantly, policymakers, especially those responsible for the topic, should recognize themselves as experts bringing valuable knowledge to the discussion, not passive recipients of academic input. Depending on the Sparring and its design, policymakers can be policy officers, head of units, or even both.
• Researchers: Researchers bring multidisciplinary expertise to the discussion and provide constructive, critical feedback to the policy document, which is then fine-tuned. During discussions, researchers are requested to articulate whether their contribution is based on peer-reviewed research or expert evaluation.

Examples of Science Sparring, conducted by the Finnish Academy of Science and Letters:

• Knowledge base of physical activity, sports and elite sports (Ministry of Education and Culture), 2025
• Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for Government R&D funding (Prime Minister’s Office), 2024
• Systems mapping of demographic change (Prime Minister’s Office, DEMOGRAPHY program), 2024
• Implementation of the Restoration Regulation (Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Science Panels), 2024
• Ecological connectivity (Ministry of the Environment), 2023
• Anticipation of the Biodiversity Act (Ministry of the Environment), 2023
• National Climate Adaptation Plan (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry), 2022
• Architectural Policy Program (Ministry of Education and Culture, Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment, and Ministry of the Environment), 2021
• Roadmap to Fossil-Free Transportation (Ministry of Transport and Communications), 2021
• Public Sector Strategy (Ministry of Finance and Association of Finnish Municipalities), 2020
• Nature Conservation Act reform (Ministry of the Environment), 2020–2021
• National Transportation Plan (Ministry of Transport and Communications), 2020
• Climate Regulatory Impact Assessment (Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Justice), 2020

Implementation of the Restoration Regulation (Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Science Panels), 2024.
Picture: Aleksi Kylmälahti, Finnish Academy of Science and Letters.

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