VERITY Scenario-Building Training for Effective Implementation of Recommendations
ModulesVERITY Scenario-Building Training for Effective Implementation of Recommendations
The Scenario-Building Training aims to make VERITY’s Recommendations for Fostering Trust in Science more actionable and transformative, supporting their clarity, relevance and feasibility. The training offers a step-by-step methodological tool for exploring how specific VERITY recommendations can be applied in real-life individual, institutional or policy contexts.
It can also be used outside the VERITY project, as a flexible resource for exploring the practical implementation of recommendations in other contexts.
Authors: Pamela Bartar & Gábor Szüdi (Centre for Social Innovation, ZSI)
What is this about?
Why is this important?
The Scenario-Building Training is important because it bridges the gap between recommendations and practice. It helps stakeholders move from abstract guidance to concrete implementation, ensuring that strategies to foster trust in science are realistic, adaptable, and sustainable. By anticipating risks and uncertainties, identifying enabling and hindering factors, and planning practical steps, the training supports users to turn ideas into action both within VERITY and in broader contexts.
Beyond its methodological value, the training also serves a wider purpose of fostering public trust in science. By guiding Stewards of Trust (SOTs) through the application of VERITY’s recommendations, it supports systemic improvements in key areas such as building trustworthy science, strengthening education, engaging the public in research, building effective science communication, and developing supportive policy frameworks. It highlights the importance of collaboration across diverse actors in the ecosystem of trust, from policymakers and researchers to educators, communicators and funders, ensuring that scientific practices remain transparent, inclusive and responsive to societal needs.Practical Tips
The Scenario-Building Training can be carried out individually or in groups. However, it provides the most valuable insights into the practical application of a given recommendation when a group of interested stakeholders (minimum 2–5 people) from the same organisation, or working on the same trust-in-science issue, jointly reflect on the key enabling and hindering conditions at the macro (socio-political), meso (organisational), and micro (individual) levels. The maximum duration refers to the time required for such a group to complete all steps and assess the most important underlying conditions across the three scenarios.
For individual work, we recommend first reflecting on the most feasible scenario. This may generate new ideas about the most relevant enabling factors for achieving better results, as well as the most serious risks and barriers that could prevent feasible implementation of the recommendation in your context. The final step is particularly important in individual work: your results should be reviewed by another person, preferably from a different professional or scientific background but with the same level of knowledge of the trust-in-science issue. If you still have doubts about certain steps of the Scenario-Building Training after reading the step-by-step guide below, we recommend consulting the seven examples developed during the VERITY Scenario-Building Workshop on 27 March 2025.STEP 1: Selection of a recommendation
Check the VERITY Protocol of Recommendations for Fostering Trust in Science (available on the VERITY website, Embassy of Good Science and Zenodo). Choose one recommendation that you want to implement in practice, e.g. in your daily work or in general in your organisation or projects. The main objective is to enhance societal trust in science, but you can decide on a more concrete application field related to your/your organisation’s work where the recommendation would be beneficial. Check the provided examples for such application fields.
· Which of the recommendations (or elements of one recommendation) do you already apply in your professional or expert routine?
· Can you name a context and describe a typical scenario?
· How do you integrate the recommendation’s objective in your daily activities to ensure an enhanced trust in science?STEP 2: Set the problem context
Define the broader (socio-economic, political) and narrower (institutional) context of the problem to be solved. Consider all background issues that can have a direct or indirect influence on the successful implementation of the recommendation. List general assumptions that you can make about the recommendation, i.e. list all those educated premises that you consider as a starting point for an effective application scenario. These assumptions are the starting points on which further reasoning and development of the scenario can be built. These assumptions can vary in nature and might relate to specific contexts like economics or social interactions.
· What is the core problem that needs to be solved to foster trust in science? What are the basic assumptions on which the application scenario can be built on?
· What are the socio-economic, political, and cultural aspects that fundamentally shape the implementation of the recommendation?
· What are the main organisational or institutional settings that potentially affect the implementation of the recommendation?STEP 3: Identify the relevant stakeholders
Identify the main individual or organisational stakeholders (Stewards of Trust) involved in the practical application of the recommendation. These stakeholders might include those who are affected by the main issue and those who can substantially contribute to the proposed solutions. Divide between game changers (or systematic innovators) and beneficiaries under the premise that roles can constantly change. In this framework, consider also the potential collaboration between various stakeholders (ecosystematic view).
· Who can benefit, can be affected negatively by or can impact the scenario related to the selected recommendation?
· Who is involved in the practical application of the recommendation within and beyond your organisation?
· How do you ensure that different voices, values and interests are engaged in the innovation/problem-solving process, including hard-to-reach or marginalised stakeholders?STEP 4: Identify the key variables
Identify the key variables, i.e. those critical factors that can severely influence the implementation of the selected recommendation. Such factors can be divided to enabling and hindering factors, and might include time, money, human and other resources and capacities, equipment, goodwill of stakeholders, etc. These factors serve for defining suitable intervention points within your scenario. At this stage, no specific activities should be drawn up, but the general terms of the different scenarios should be constructed, i.e. key intervention points within and beyond the organisational setting with consideration of the role of identified relevant stakeholders.
· What are the enabling factors and strategies to facilitate the effective implementation of the recommendation?
· What are the hindering factors, i.e. obstacles and challenges that impede progress of a successful scenario-building?
· What are the key intervention points for the scenario?
· How can the identified stakeholders be involved in the innovation/problem-solving process?STEP 5: Describe the main outputs of the most feasible scenario
Given the already determined elements, the outputs of a baseline scenario should be elaborated, i.e. the practical outputs to be achieved if the identified stakeholders work effectively together, by use of the identified intervention points, towards the joint achievement of the set objectives under the given circumstances. These tangible outputs can include concrete products, such as educational materials or communication events, but also cover less material accomplishments, such as increased information exchange or a mutual learning process.
The scenario-building methodology uses design thinking to develop fresh ideas and an out-of-the-box perspective: You can start to think of a worst-case or a best-case scenario to trigger your creativity and vision. Our instruction uses the most feasible scenario as a starting point, i.e. a realistic plan to achieve, considering the crucial key variables. This initial brainstorming on the most strategic options for a scenario supports further idea generation towards a best-case and worst-case scenario. The best-case should deliberately go beyond what is really under the current conditions and aim to define outputs that are to be achieved in the future when the present assumptions and underlying enabling factors favourably change. The worst-case should serve as a reminder what could happen, if no action is taken or the well-intended initiatives to enhance trust in science are not properly planned or encounter insurmountable structural or organisational barriers.
· Most feasible scenario: What are the outputs to be realistically achieved given the current enabling and hindering conditions?
· Best-case scenario: What are the results to be ultimately aimed for when all the circumstances are ideal to apply the recommendation?
· Worst-case scenario: What can happen in case, e.g. the recommendation is applied to an inadequate context, stakeholders are not well-informed or well-addressed, no action can be taken, or the implementation is inadequately planned?STEP 6: Define the actionable steps leading towards achieving the objectives
Reverting from the main outputs identified, the actionable steps should be listed that are positively necessary for the successful implementation of the selected recommendation. The training envisages working with the most feasible scenario, but additional steps can be considered for the best-case scenario or even detrimental actions for the worst-case scenario. All action steps should consider the identified stakeholders to be involved, as well as the key intervention points towards which certain actions might lead. The action should include steps that mitigate expected and unforeseen risks, as well as capitalise on arising opportunities.
· What are the main actionable steps needed from you and each stakeholder to achieve the objectives defined for our scenario?
· How do you ensure that your implementation actions can adapt to unforeseen results or changes in the underlying conditions? (e.g. societal, economic, political)
· How do you ensure to capitalise on arising opportunities through your actions?STEP 7: Describe the main outcomes of the most feasible scenario (impact)
Having planned the actionable steps resulting in the defined outputs, the main outcomes of the most feasible scenario should be detailed. Outcomes represent the longer-term effect and impact of the applied scenario on individuals, groups or the broader context. The changes occurring as a result of the identified outputs should first be reflected on, with the aim of specifying at least one outcome. The assessment of the outcome should include the understanding of the wider outreach, the potential transferability and significance of the scenario actions (impact aspect) and the duration of the consequences of such actions and key intervention points (long-term effect perspective).
· Build a vision and a mission: what is the main output and outcome of the successfully fulfilled feasible scenario?
· What are the main benefits? Who are the main beneficiaries of the impacts of your scenario?
· How can potentially negative impacts be transformed into assets or socially innovative outcomes?STEP 8: Develop an appropriate impact measurement framework
As outcomes are less tangible than outputs and might involve less quantifiable patterns such as behavioural change, the appropriate identification/development of key performance indicators (KPIs) is crucial to track observable longer-term trends, such as an increase in skills or shifts in the behaviour of certain population segments, which is potentially caused by successful interventions of our implementation. Consider at least one key performance indicator (KPI) with which a durable outcome can be measured for later analysis.
· What are the KPIs with which to measure the long-term effects and impact of the applied scenario?
· Is the KPI strategically aligned with my organisation or project?
· Is the KPI operationally actionable within my organisation or project?
· How long will it take to reach your objective/s?
· How do you measure these KPIs in a conceivable way?
· Foresight: In which ways has the scenario application impacted your organisation or project?STEP 9: Re-iteration of the scenario-building process
As certain implementation issues can be overlooked at the first attempt of the scenario-building exercise, it is recommended to repeat all the steps at least one more time, preferably with the involvement of other actors. The methodology can be reapplied at pre-defined regular intervals to establish an innovative process in your organisation or when new information comes to light. This follow-up can help to overcome any challenges or concerns arising towards the realisation of the determined objectives or to simply revise vital points of the scenario for better results.
· How do you promote reflection with the other participants on the most feasible scenario?
· How do you ensure that relevant new information concerning the recommendation or results is regularly provided to the participants of the scenario-building exercise?
