Strengthening the research and policy bond for energy systems decarbonization: What will it take to make meaningful change?

 

Forum's Associate Director, Practice & Program Impact, Georgia Rubenstein reports on the second of two recent Listening Session Forums on Energy System Decarbonization, in which the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation supported the convening of energy system actors for interactive workshops on bridging the gap between research and action. 

For more context on these sessions and a summary of the first Listening Session, click here.  

In January 2025, Forum for the Future partnered with Resources for the Future (no relation, although both organizations are dedicated to navigating toward a positive future!) to organize one of two Listening Session Forums on behalf of the Sloan Foundation. This workshop brought a range of experts together to explore what’s needed to strengthen the bond between energy systems research and policymaking in support of a decarbonized future.  

There are numerous barriers to optimal research / policy connections; from researchers lacking the right incentives to policymakers not having the time or capacity to engage in technical research, these challenges are known and often acknowledged by those who work in this space. The aim of the day-long session was to support participants to move from a feeling of “stuck-ness” related to what can feel like intractable challenges and, instead, to enable and empower them to think strategically about what is really needed to make progress, and what their own role might be in making that change.  

Throughout the day, participants engaged in dialogue, took part in visioning and brainstorming exercises, and were prompted to look at their work and the barriers they face from fresh perspectives. This thoughtful, creative space ultimately led to inspiration and a greater understanding – both individually and collectively – of possible paths forward to strengthen the research/policy bond. 

We started the day looking toward the future, asking the seemingly simple question: Why does this matter? Often, when we’re deeply steeped in a particular discipline or endeavor, we can lose sight of the “why” behind our work or assume that others around us hold the same beliefs and values as we do about why our work is important. This visioning session prompted participants to get clear, with themselves and one another, about why a stronger research / policy bond is important, with the recognition that this link is a means to an end and not necessarily the end goal itself. Participants shared perhaps the most obvious “why” underlying this connection: the value of ensuring that energy policy is grounded in the best data and science available. Other insights arose as well, such as:  

  • The role of research(ers) in helping to navigate complexity and tradeoffs, and the related need to bring an interdisciplinary approach to energy policy, recognizing that no one researcher or discipline can provide the “perfect” answer to policymakers; 
  • An increasing lack of consensus around what the “best available” science really means, and a corresponding need to create a more vibrant, informed stakeholder community around research and policy; and  
  • The recognition that research operates in a values-driven framework, and rather than assume that objective data will reveal the path forward, we must name and continually prioritize our intended outcomes. 

Having developed a shared understanding of why the day’s conversation matters, we moved into a deeper exploration of what’s holding a stronger energy research / policy bond back. Participants explored a list of commonly cited barriers. While all these barriers felt relevant – and some attendees even had more barriers to add to the list – we knew that effective problem solving would require prioritization. Small groups were given the difficult task of identifying a subset of barriers that they felt most important to act on.  

To support this exercise, we offered two selection criteria: 1) feasibility (i.e., Can something actually be done about this barrier? Are there resources available? Is there a sense of momentum to make change?) and 2) potential for deep change (i.e., Would addressing this barrier meaningfully shift the status quo, or would it simply make superficial changes to how things work today?). We reminded participants that, unlike the research they’re often working on, prioritizing barriers is much more of an art than a science.  

Ultimately, the full group of participants narrowed in on the following seven barriers as being both feasible to tackle and most promising in terms of making meaningful change:  

  • Researchers may lack funding for policy-focused research 
  • Researchers may lack publication incentives to do policy-focused research
  • Lack of incentives and capacity to do necessary synthesis of research takeaways
  • Researchers and policymakers may seek to answer different questions  
  • Answering policy questions may require expertise and input from multiple research disciplines  
  • Researchers and policymakers may not use the same language to describe problems  
  • Researchers may not have relationships with policymakers, especially when policymakers change frequently  

The group had now aligned on a long-term vision of success, and what was holding the wider system back from getting there. Before moving into a conversation about what we might actually do to strengthen the energy research / policy bond, there was one more ingredient to add to the mix. To gather inspiration about what had been proven to work, we heard brief case studies of successful research / policy connections from participants in the room. As people shared their positive stories, a few common success factors emerged:  

  • The flexibility and availability of researchers – including their capacity to be persistent and “make their own luck,” having ideas and inputs at the ready, and looking out ahead for when the timing might be right, even as decision-making and policy needs shift;
  • Having the right messengers, the right partners, and supportive institutional infrastructure, all with aligned objectives; and  
  • Being very clear about one’s audience, communicating compellingly across perspectives, and not forgetting the human face of policymaking.  

After lunch, we were ready to focus on devising solutions. Participants organized into small groups based on the barrier they had the most interest and energy to work on. Drawing on tools from the field of systems change, we introduced the iceberg model, which helped folks expand their understanding of each barrier. This framework helped them to dig down “below the surface” to explore the implicit assumptions, mindsets, power dynamics, and other hidden factors that cause each barrier to persist.  

Armed with this more nuanced understanding of what really needs to change, small groups then worked together to dream big and come up with a new program or initiative to tackle their chosen barrier. We were intrigued to discover that, while each group focused on a different barrier, there were a lot of commonalities across the ideas for action.

Every group, in some way, narrowed in on the human side of the research / policy connection: referencing the need to do more “bridge-building” and to identify “unicorns” who could easily navigate these complex spaces and move across and between research and policymaker perspectives. They called for more intentional convening of stakeholders from across disciplines and sectors, and the creation of more opportunities for continuous knowledge sharing and communication among researchers, policymakers, and other key actors in this space.

There was a palpable sense in the room of the need to work in these different, more collaborative ways going forward – forging a more “always on,” less transactional, more relational link between the energy and policy spheres – particularly during this time of rapid change and disruption in the energy policy space. 

This workshop, in a small way, modeled what this new way of working together might look like: bringing people together from across sectors, disciplines, and levels of government, and providing shared space for reflection, dialogue, and relationship-building. We hope that approaches like this – along with the ideas generated in the workshop – will be taken forward and advanced by the participants. Our conversations at the workshop made clear, that this will be necessary to continue to make progress toward strengthening the critical bond between researchers and policymakers in support of a decarbonized energy system and a positive impact on the world around us.  

Contact our Futures Team to learn more about our work to use futures to shift mindsets, spark creative thinking, and drive transformational change.

 

Manage Cookie Preferences