LIST OF WORKSHOPS

Wicked problems such as climate change, environmental degradation, and global health crises continue to challenge governance systems across the globe. These problems are defined by their complexity, uncertainty, and the presence of conflicting values and interests among different stakeholders (Head, 2022). Addressing them requires a solid foundation of evidence to support informed decision-making. For instance, addressing climate change requires understanding the causes and impacts of climate change including integrating scientific data, environmental modelling, and socioeconomic analysis to guide effective and acceptable mitigation and adaptation measures. Similarly, responding to global health crises, such as pandemics, depends on reliable evidence to inform public health strategies, vaccine development, and international cooperation. However, the use of scientific evidence in wicked problem settings remains sparse and subject to various conditions, underscoring the need to better understand the factors influencing its relevance and use throughout the policy process associated with such problems (Head, 2010; Cairney, 2016).

In the past years, public policy scholars have come up with diverse interrelated factors affecting the effective integration of scientific evidence into policy processes related to wicked problems characterized by complexity, uncertainty, and contested values. Amongst these, we highlight here three strands of emerging factors potentially affecting the translation of scientific evidence in policy processes which are worth further investigation:

1. Type of evidence affecting translation

The nature of the scientific evidence related to wicked problems plays a crucial role in its uptake. Evidence that is actionable, contextualized, and timely generally enhances its relevance to policymakers, also in wicked problem contexts. At the same time, researchers may have various functions in different types of policy problems, with problem-sensing and recognizing being more relevant in wicked, unstructured problem contexts and problem solving being more relevant in the case of tame, more structured problems (Hoppe et al., 2023). Research has further continuously suggested that co-produced knowledge, and specifically knowledge resulting from transdisciplinary approaches including scientists, policymakers, and stakeholders influence the uptake of scientific knowledge and the framing of wicked problems (e.g., Head & Xiang, 2016; Pohl et al., 2017).

2. Approaches affecting translation

Further, the mechanisms through which scientific evidence is communicated to policymakers are pivotal. For instance, traditional approaches to science communication often involve linear transmission of knowledge (deficit model of science communication), whereas more recent approaches emphasize a bilateral flow of information (dialogic and participatory model of science communication) (Sokolovska et al., 2019; Metcalfe 2019, 2022). These participatory processes foster mutual understanding and trust, leading to more effective integration of evidence into policy. Further, the role of intermediaries and boundary organizations has been emphasized for translating scientific evidence into policy, as they facilitate communication and negotiation between different knowledge communities (Wesselink & Hoppe, 2020; Kirschke & Kosow, 2025).

3. Contextual factors affecting translation

The broader institutional and political context significantly influences the use of scientific evidence. Factors such as the capacity of public authorities, political-administrative cultures, and policy legacies shape translational practices and outcomes. Emerging technologies, particularly digital tools and artificial intelligence (AI), are increasingly being utilized to process and disseminate scientific evidence, potentially reshaping how evidence is used in policy processes. Do these AI tools signal both a revival of interest and perhaps increased capacity for evidence-based analysis? Or do they equally increase the prospect of disinformation and confusion?

Against this background, this workshop further examines how interaction at the science–policy interface (SPI) shapes the understanding and management of ‘wicked’ (Rittel & Webber, 1973), ‘unstructured’ (Hoppe, 2011) or ‘uncertainty’ problems (Dewulf & Biesbroek, 2018) throughout the policy process—from problem framing and policy design to implementation and evaluation. We explore and analyse different influencing factors for evidence-based policy design in wicked problem settings. This includes relevant contents, approaches, and emerging contextual factors affecting translation.

The workshop addresses the three following sets of questions:

1. Type of evidence affecting translation

a. What types of scientific evidence are translated into the policy process in the context of wicked problems, characterized by complexity, complexity, and uncertainty?

b. How do different models of knowledge co-production between scientists, policymakers, and stakeholders influence the uptake of scientific knowledge and the framing of wicked problems, in particular?

2. Approaches affecting translation

a. What are traditional and innovative approaches to science-policy interaction, and what are their comparative effects on policy processes?

b. What roles do different actors, and intermediaries and boundary organizations, in particular, play in translating scientific evidence into policy processes?

3. Contextual factors affecting translation

a. How do digital tools and AI reshape the use of evidence in wicked problem domains?

b. How do institutional settings and political-administrative cultures shape translational practices and outcomes?

By addressing these questions, the workshop aims to advance a more nuanced understanding of evidence-informed decision-making under conditions of complexity and contestation. Collectively, the contributions will illuminate how interactions at the science-policy interface can move beyond the symbolic use of evidence to support meaningful, adaptive, and legitimate policy change in the governance of wicked problems.

References

Cairney, P. (2016). The politics of evidence-based policy making. Springer.

Dewulf, A., & Biesbroek, R. (2018). Nine lives of uncertainty in decision-making: strategies for dealing with uncertainty in environmental governance. Policy and Society, 37(4), 441-458.

Head, B. W. (2010). Reconsidering evidence-based policy: Key issues and challenges. Policy and society, 29(2), 77-94.

Head, B. W., & Xiang, W. N. (2016). Why is an APT approach to wicked problems important? Landscape and Urban Planning, 154, 4-7.

Head, B. W. (2022). Wicked problems in public policy: Understanding and responding to complex challenges (p. 176). Springer Nature.

Hoppe, R. (2011). The governance of problems: Puzzling, powering, participation. Policy Press.

Hoppe, R., & Turnbull, N. (2024). Problem structuring, wrong-problem problems and metagovernance as the strategic management of intractable positions: The case of the EU GM Crop Regulatory Framework controversy. Public Policy and Administration, 39(3), 475-496.

Kirschke, S., & Kosow, H. (2025). Structuring wicked problems in science communication. Review of Policy Research.

Metcalfe, J. (2019). Rethinking science communication models in practice. Online: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/228126323.pdf (Accessed 11.06.2024).

Metcalfe, J. (2022). Science communication: a messy conundrum of practice, research and theory Journal of Science Communication 21(C07). doi: https://doi.org/10.22323/2.21070307

Pohl, C., Truffer, B., & Hirsch-Hadorn, G. (2017). Addressing wicked problems through transdisciplinary research. The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity, 2, 319-331.

Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy sciences, 4(2), 155-169.

Sokolovska, N., Fecher, B., & Wagner, G. G. (2019). Communication on the science-policy interface: an overview of conceptual models. Publications, 7(4), 64.

Wesselink, A., & Hoppe, R. (2020). Boundary organizations: intermediaries in science–policy interactions. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics.

Wicked problems such as climate change, environmental degradation, and global health crises continue to challenge governance systems worldwide. Characterized by complexity, uncertainty, and contested values, these problems demand adaptive, integrative, and evidence-informed approaches to policymaking. Yet, the interaction between science and policy in addressing wicked problems remains insufficiently understood.

This workshop examines how interactions at the science–policy interface shape the understanding and management of wicked problems across the policy process—from problem framing and policy design to implementation and evaluation.

We invite theoretical and empirical contributions that investigate the scientific evidence translated into policy processes, approaches to translation at the science-policy interface, and contextual factors shaping the translation of scientific evidence in policy processes. Contributions should address at least one of the three set of research questions:

1. Type of evidence affecting translation

a. What types of scientific evidence are translated into the policy process in the context of wicked problems characterized by conflicts, complexity, and uncertainty?

b. How do different models of knowledge co-production between scientists, policymakers, and stakeholders influence the uptake of scientific knowledge and the framing of wicked problems, in particular?

2. Approaches affecting translation

a. What are traditional and innovative approaches to science-policy interaction, and what are their comparative effects on policy processes?

b. What roles do different actors—particularly intermediaries and boundary organizations—play in translating scientific evidence into policy processes?

3. Contextual factor affecting translation

a. How do digital tools and AI reshape the translation of evidence in wicked problem domains?

b. How do institutional settings and political-administrative cultures shape translational practices and outcomes?

We welcome research contributions from diverse policy fields such as climate change, environmental degradation, agri-food systems, public health, as well as cross-sectoral analyses. All paper proposers are invited to indicate their interest in contributing to a joint special issue in a public policy journal, with submission deadline after the workshop in fall 2026.

Wicked problems such as climate change, environmental degradation, and global health crises continue to challenge governance systems worldwide. Characterized by complexity, uncertainty, and contested values, these problems demand adaptive, integrative, and evidence-informed approaches to policymaking. Yet, the interaction between science and policy in addressing wicked problems remains insufficiently understood.

This workshop examines how interactions at the science–policy interface shape the understanding and management of wicked problems across the policy process—from problem framing and policy design to implementation and evaluation. We invite and discuss theoretical and empirical contributions that investigate how evidence is produced, translated, and used within political and administrative contexts. Key themes include the co-production of knowledge, the role of intermediaries and boundary organizations, and the conditions under which SPIs foster learning, legitimacy, and effective governance.

By integrating perspectives from multiple disciplines, the workshop aims to advance a more nuanced understanding of evidence-informed decision-making under conditions of complexity and contestation. Collectively, the contributions will illuminate how SPIs can move beyond the symbolic use of evidence to support meaningful, adaptive, and legitimate policy change in the governance of wicked problems.

Dr Sabrina Kirschke is the Head of the Public Policy Research Group at the Museum für Naturkunde – Leibniz Institute for Evolution and Biodiversity Science (MfN). With a background in political science, her main research interest lies in how diverse participatory approaches influence wicked public policy problems. Her work includes analysing the interplay between science and policy, conducting research at the interface of public science and public policy, and examining complex resource management issues through inter- and transdisciplinary approaches and mixed-methods designs. She is particularly interested in policy-relevant research for nature at various regional scales. Before joining MfN, she worked as a researcher at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research and the United Nations University.

Professor Brian Head joined the University of Queensland in mid-2007 after holding senior roles in government, universities, and the non-government sector. He is the author or editor of several books and numerous articles on public management, governance, social issues and environmental policy. His major interests are evidence-based policy, complex or 'wicked' problems, program evaluation, early intervention and prevention, collaboration and consultation, public sector integrity, and leadership. He has undertaken several consultancies on program evaluation, policy review, organisational performance, and good governance processes. He has strong interests in applied research across many areas of public policy and governance, and is committed to building closer links between the research and policy sectors. His recent books include Wicked Problems in Public Policy (2022, Palgrave, open access), Reconsidering Policy (2020, Policy Press, co-authored), and Learning Policy, Doing Policy (2021, ANU Press, co-edited).