The first step is often a phone call

There is a comfortable assumption in research: produce good science, communicate it clearly, and it will find its way into decisions. Almost everyone who has tried to work with policymakers or practitioners knows this is not quite how it goes. But what engagement actually involves, and what competencies it requires, is discussed far less often, especially with early-career researchers who are increasingly expected to do it.

That was the starting point for our workshop, Science for Policy in Biodiversity and Beyond, held on 21 August 2026 for early-career researchers. Over the course of the day, researchers, practitioners and people working within public administration explored what science–policy engagement looks like in practice, where it becomes difficult, and what helps. The programme combined expert inputs, a fishbowl discussion and a hands-on methodological exercise.

The first thing to recognise is that there is no single audience.

Karen Bussmann-Charran, an aquatic ecologist at Eawag, has worked across research, policy, practice and public engagement, and her examples showed how differently these groups use knowledge. Policymakers often need concise, usable information: arguments that can inform a decision, and sometimes a clear recommendation. Practitioners frequently bring considerable expertise of their own and may be looking for something that can be translated into a workable approach or a practical rule of thumb, not a literature review.

What both have in common is that the exchange depends on relationships, trust and an understanding of context. These are not things that can simply be added to a finished paper.

Bianca Saladin, who leads strategic projects at the Canton of Zurich's Nature Conservation Office and previously completed her PhD at WSL, offered the perspective from inside public administration.

Her advice to researchers was concrete: become visible, build relationships early, understand who you are actually talking to, and offer guidance rather than laying out a range of scientific options and stepping back. Researchers can help by making trade-offs and uncertainties understandable. The strategic and political decisions that follow belong to policymakers, and that boundary matters in both directions.

Both perspectives made a similar point: science can inform decisions, but engaging with policy also means understanding the processes, constraints and people around those decisions.

One encouraging point came up repeatedly. People outside science are often far more open to being contacted by researchers than researchers assume. Several participants had discovered this simply by trying. Someone also noted that being willing to pick up the phone, rather than relying entirely on email, can change what is possible.

Ask what makes this kind of work succeed, and the answers are not necessarily the qualities that stand out on a CV: patience, persistence, openness to critical feedback, flexibility in language, and a willingness to learn by doing. Subject expertise matters, but on its own it is not enough. This came through particularly clearly in the fishbowl discussion, where participants shared their own experiences of science–policy engagement, including what had worked, what had not, and why.

Another point that came up was that no individual researcher needs to have every science–policy competency. Teams and networks can combine strengths: one person may be strong on analysis, another on translating knowledge, and another on maintaining relationships over years.

The goal does not have to be turning every researcher into an all-purpose science–policy expert. It can also be about creating environments where people with different strengths and roles can work together. For someone starting out, that may make engagement feel a little more manageable.

This was revealed interactively during the Lego serious play exercise, which required participants in teams to build with limited pieces and time, a science-policy collaboration model. These conditions encouraged participants to think freely outside the box and be creative in the way they can engage.

The harder question surfaced repeatedly and stayed unresolved: engagement takes time, continuity and long-term relationship building, while scientific careers are often organised around short-term projects and fixed-term contracts.

Who is expected to do this additional work, and with what resources?

Participants asked versions of this question throughout the day. If institutions expect engagement, the time and continuity it requires have to come from somewhere. At the moment, much of this work still seems to depend on individual motivation and willingness to invest extra time.

That is difficult to sustain, especially when early-career researchers are often working in the least secure positions.

Calling for more science–policy engagement is therefore only part of the conversation. The conditions that make it possible also need attention.

One lesson emerged from something that did not go according to plan. When a scheduled session was cancelled at short notice, we adapted the programme and left more room for informal exchange. That unplanned space turned out to be productive. A series of cartoons developed through the ETH Joint Initiative ENGAGE Community of Practice, exploring the soft skills needed at the science–policy interface, became a natural starting point for conversation and prompted lively discussion among participants.

The gap turned out not to be a loss. Conversations begun in the formal sessions continued, people met others from different institutions, and some new connections started to form.

There was a certain irony in this. During the day, we had repeatedly talked about how important personal contacts and networks are for effective engagement, while our original schedule had left almost no room for them to develop.

So one practical lesson for us was: do not programme every minute.

Informal interaction is not simply the space between the real sessions. Sometimes it is where useful conversations happen.

Asked what they would try next, participants were quite practical: create regular spaces for exchange between researchers and policy or practice actors; approach people more actively; start working groups from the needs of practice rather than from research questions; find formats that work for both sides rather than only for academics.

Two notes captured it particularly well. The first: don't do it alone, team up.

The second, and shortest: Call!

Getting science into policy is not a final step that happens once the research is done. It often involves understanding contexts, building relationships, translating knowledge and negotiating roles.

But the entry point does not have to be a new programme or a polished policy brief. It can simply be finding the right person and starting a conversation.

And sometimes that really does begin with picking up the phone.

This post draws on the Science for Policy in Biodiversity and Beyond workshop, held on 21 August 2026 at WSL Birmensdorf. The workshop brought together early-career researchers from WSL and Eawag with researchers, practitioners and facilitators working at the science–policy interface across Switzerland. The day included expert presentations by Dr. Karen Bussmann-Charran and Dr. Bianca Saladin, a fishbowl discussion, a LEGO® Serious Play® session facilitated by Lene Topp, and a cartoon exhibition on competencies and soft skills at the science–policy interface.

The workshop was organised by members of the Community of Practice of the ETH Joint Initiative Engage together with colleagues at WSL: Jialin Zhang (Eawag), Cédric Bolli (Albert Einstein School of Public Policy, ETH Zurich), Sabine Hoffmann (Eawag), Tim Geiges (WSL), Leila Anna Schuh (WSL) and Nadia Cristina Castro Izaguirre (WSL). The workshop was funded by the WSL-Eawag Biodiversity Center.