Communicating Science for Policy CHECKLIST.pdf

Checklist

This checklist summarizes considerations to address in effectively communicating science for policy. Use the checklist to develop and review written and oral communication for your policy engagement to ensure you have covered each of these dimensions.: 1) aligning your strategy with your goals and objectives; 2) deciding whether technocratic decision-making or public deliberation approaches are more appropriate; 3) establishing what types of evidence are needed by the decision-maker based on the policy stage; 4) selecting an expert communicative mode; 5) building relationships; and 6) communicating complex science and uncertainty.

View and download the checklist by clicking on the image on the left.

The checklist includes new content developed by the authors in addition to the adaptation and summarization of previous research (see references below).

Citation: Akerlof, K., Tyler, C., Canino, H., Allegra, A., Tan, W. H., Heath, E., Piquado, T., Sierra, L., Hernández-Mondragón, A. C., Quiroz-Valenzuela, S., Michalek, T., Motala-Timol, S., Munatsi, R., Washbourne, C., & Allen, K. (2025). Communicating science for policy checklist. Communicating Science for Policy (website). https://www.communicatingscienceforpolicy.org/

References

Whom should the research expert engage? Is this a more technocratic problem that can be solved by experts alone, or one requiring broader public deliberation?
- Hurlbert, M., & Gupta, J. (2015). The split ladder of participation: A diagnostic, strategic, and evaluation tool to assess when participation is necessary. Environmental Science & Policy, 50, 100-113.
Who are the priority stakeholders/decision-makers for engagement?
- Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. (2009). 'Mode 3' and 'Quadruple Helix': toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, 46(3-4), 201-234.
What is the selected institutional context of the research expert and the prioritized decision-maker?
- Akerlof, K. L. (2025, February 15). Training scientists to communicate with policymakers: New tools and approaches. AAAS Annual Meeting, Boston, MA.
What types of evidence are needed by the priority decision-maker?
- Bardach, E., & Patashnik, E. M. (2023). A practical guide for policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective problem solving. CQ Press.
- Wagner, N., Canino, H., Kölbel, A., Zoth, L., & Sorge, A. (2023). Transformatives Regieren für systemischen Wandel: Für eine neue Art der Politikgestaltung in Deutschland. Institut für Innovation und Technik (iit).
Which communicative mode is most appropriate to the researchers’ and the decision-makers' institutional contexts?
- Steel, B., Lach, D., List, P., & Shindler, B. (2000). The role of scientists in the natural resource and environmental policy process: A comparison of Canadian and American publics. Journal of Environmental Systems, 28(2), 133–155.
How might the research expert build rapport and strengthen relationships?
- Van Dijk, T. A. (2014). Discourse and knowledge: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Gabbert, F., Hope, L., Luther, K., Wright, G., Ng, M., & Oxburgh, G. (2021). Exploring the use of rapport in professional information-gathering contexts by systematically mapping the evidence base. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(2), 329–341.
- Huang, K., Yeomans, M., Brooks, A. W., Minson, J., & Gino, F. (2017). It doesn’t hurt to ask: Question-asking increases liking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(3), 430–452.
What other behaviors are important for experts’ interactions with decision-makers?
- Oliver, K., et al. (in review). What factors influence evidence use in policymaking? An updated systematic map. Policy and Politics.
- Cairney, P., & and Wellstead, A. (2021). COVID-19: Effective policymaking depends on trust in experts, politicians, and the public. Policy Design and Practice, 4(1), 1–14.
How can research experts best communicate complex evidence?
- Stableford, S., & Mettger, W. (2007). Plain language: a strategic response to the health literacy challenge. Journal of Public Health Policy, 28, 71-93.
- Somerville, R. C. J., & Hassol, S. J. (2011). Communicating the science of climate change. Physics Today, 64(10), 48–53.
- Rowan, K. E., Botan, C. H., Kreps, G. L., Samoilenko, S., & Farnsworth, K. (2020). Risk communication education for local emergency managers: Using the CAUSE model for research, education, and outreach. In Handbook of risk and crisis communication (pp. 168-191). Routledge.
What types of uncertainty should be addressed?
- Fischhoff, B., & Davis, A. L. (2014). Communicating scientific uncertainty. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(supplement_4), 13664–13671; plus our 4th addition to the Fischhoff & Davis tripartite typology (persuasion)
How can experts best convey uncertainty?
- Budescu, D. V., Broomell, S., & Por, H.-H. (2009). Improving communication of uncertainty in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Psychological Science, 20(3), 299–308.
- Morss, R. E., Demuth, J. L., & Lazo, J. K. (2008). Communicating uncertainty in weather forecasts: A survey of the U.S. public. Weather and Forecasting, 23(5), 974–991.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse