Participatory governance in public research organizations: a case study on institutional challenges and ethical considerations within German ministerial research institutes

The demands placed on research and innovation in Germany and the EU have shifted significantly over the past three decades, moving away from an image of science in which scientific progress automatically benefits society and toward the expectation that science should be conducted more directly for and with society. The two most recent European Framework Programs, Horizon 2020 (2013–2020) and Horizon Europe (2021–2027), exemplify this change. The key themes of Horizon 2020 included “Science with and for Society” and “Responsible Research and Innovation” (EC, 2011). Both shared the goal of aligning research and innovation with societal needs and foresaw collaboration among civil society, business, politics and the research community to find joint solutions to global challenges (EC, 2011; EC, 2016a; EC, 2016b).

In Germany, this shift is also reflected in the development of the High-Tech Strategy. The first version of the High-Tech Strategy, from 2006, aimed to integrate innovation policy for 17 high-tech sectors across all areas, focusing particularly on the market potential of specific technology fields and on optimizing knowledge and technology transfer among the actors in the innovation system (BMBF, 2006). Since 2010, the High-Tech Strategy has focused on “societal needs for sustainable solutions and their realization” (BMBF, 2016). The dialogue between research and innovation with the involvement of society on the one hand, and the real world on the other, has a key role to play in this context (BMBF, 2016).

The 2014 version of the High-Tech Strategy addressed this focus and highlighted it by naming “Transparency and Participation” as one of the five core elements of the strategy. The aims in this case were to improve knowledge about new technologies through greater participation, to enhance citizens’ understanding and to make them more open to technology as a result. Additionally, integrating society is intended to strengthen innovative capacity. The latest version of High-Tech Strategy was published in 2018 and aims to develop the focus on societal challenges, moving it further toward mission-oriented innovation policy. The intention here is to align innovation processes with pressing societal challenges and mobilize actors from science, business and society to achieve them (BMBF, 2021).

It is possible to identify three arguments underpinning this development in research policy frameworks. The first relates to normative claims for open science and the democratic principle of enabling and promoting informed citizen participation (democracy argument). The second is based on a desire to align science more directly with societal issues and needs, acknowledging that a large proportion of research is funded by public means and therefore must also benefit the public (legitimacy argument). The third is based on the idea that involving citizens in research and innovation processes can lead to solutions that are aligned with demand and, therefore, are accepted solutions − in applied research and development in particular, this can help avoid costly developments in the wrong direction (quality argument) (e.g. Chesbrough et al., 2006; Kaiser et al., 2025; Von Hippel, 2005). Together, these three arguments form the basis for an increase in demand for participatory governance in research. This comes into play at very different points in different research projects − it may be relevant to anything from agenda-setting (e.g. Heidingsfelder et al., 2015; Heidingsfelder et al., 2016; Rosa et al., 2021; Schütz et al., 2019) to testing solutions in living labs (e.g. Ballon and Schuurman, 2015; Bergvall-Kåreborn et al., 2009). Accordingly, research institutions today carry out much more public engagement and communicate information about their research more intensively and publicly (Bogner, 2012; Entradas et al., 2020; Schrögel and Kolleck, 2019).

Where citizens are concerned, recent studies show not only high levels of interest in science and research, but also an increasing demand to be included and involved: At the European level, the majority of citizens (52%) want to be informed about decisions in science and technology. Additionally, 32% believe that public opinion should influence the decisions of scientists, engineers and politicians in the field of science and technology (EC, 2025). Evaluations of the German Science Barometer 2024 show that 32% of German citizens fully agree and another 32% somewhat agree that it is important to involve them as citizens in decisions about new research topics (Wissenschaft im Dialog, 2024). By comparison, only 27% fully agreed with this in 2017 (Wissenschaft im Dialog, 2024). Furthermore, 43% of respondents indicated that they would participate in a scientific research project, and 40% expressed interest in participating in a discussion format with scientists (Wissenschaft im Dialog, 2024). At the same time, a qualitative study by Schütz et al. (2019) indicated that citizens are not demanding the right to have a direct say in decisions on the allocation of research funds and the direction of research. Instead, they want to be consulted and wish to communicate their needs and desires to researchers and research institutions, but they then want to leave the researchers to determine how best to address these concerns. Particularly in fields that have a direct connection to citizens’ daily lives (such as climate change, health and energy), research institutes are being faced with growing societal expectations (EC, 2025; Stewart, 2023).

Despite the increase in public engagement and science communication from the scientific community, and citizens’ growing interest in staying informed about research and participating directly, the demand for participatory governance remains a persistent challenge. Participation is often fraught with dilemmas (van der Helm, 2007) and ethical challenges, which we will address particularly in Chapter 3.3.

Central to understanding the case study is our conception of science communication as a bidirectional process. We are undergoing a “democratic turn” (Kurath and Gisler, 2009; McCallie et al., 2009; EC, 2009), which describes the shift in the goal of science communication from public understanding of science to public engagement in science. In this bidirectional understanding, the key is to not only communicate knowledge and insights from science to society but also convey incentives, needs and desires from society back to science. Given the research policy framework conditions described at the outset, this understanding seems appropriate. However, its implementation in practice is associated with significant challenges.

Science communication is neither a mandatory component of scientific education nor firmly anchored in the reputation system. Researchers typically do not acquire formal qualifications for engaging in dialogue with the public, which can lead to uncertainties and reluctance (Wissenschaftsrat, 2021). Additionally, the public audience that many formats of science reach often has a homogeneous profile: Individuals with higher educational backgrounds are generally significantly overrepresented, while those who have lower levels of formal education, come from migration backgrounds or have otherwise experienced marginalized life situations are rarely addressed (Humm et al., 2024; Schrögel et al., 2020).

This is not solely due to the thematic focus taken on by individual items of information presented to the public, or how their media formats are designed: Often, there are also invisible barriers to access. Many media formats assume that participants possess high standards of language proficiency and media literacy, and have a basic understanding of scientific communication norms − requirements that can pose entry barriers for many parties who may be interested in participating (Humm et al., 2024). Another challenge lies in asymmetrical knowledge relationships and the increasing fragmentation of societal public spheres. Ziegler and Fischer (2020) emphasize that the common knowledge base possessed by society is at risk of eroding: Echo chambers, polarization, alternative facts and populist discourses make it difficult to reach a consensus on scientifically established knowledge. At the same time, distrust in experts is growing and complex research topics remain inaccessible to many people. Additionally, mediatization is exacerbating existing imbalances in the visibility of research topics: As Schäfer (2008) shows, topics that are controversial, pluralistically discussed and media-compatible are especially likely to receive public attention, while other fields remain largely invisible, thus offering little opportunity for societal co-design.

To share decision-making power between science and society, participation must go beyond symbolic gestures and be structurally anchored. This requires co-design at multiple levels − in research objectives and governance structures, for example, and through institutionalized participation in forms such as permanent committees, target agreements or funded dialogue spaces (Humm et al., 2024).

Participatory governance seeks to build a bridge between public institutions and society by offering an ethically grounded framework that enables pressing societal challenges to be addressed through deliberative, co-creative and inclusive practices (Fischer, 2012; Galego et al., 2021; McNulty and Wampler, 2015; Palumbo, 2017). While originally rooted in political decision-making, the normative claims associated with participatory governance are, as outlined above, increasingly being applied beyond the political system − particularly in the research system and in light of societal expectations shifting toward publicly funded research.

This development raises the question of how participatory structures can be effectively institutionalized, and how better practices and policies can be developed to guide participatory approaches within publicly funded research organizations (McNulty and Wampler, 2015). Recent literature discusses several enabling conditions for operationalizing effective participation and highlights a shift from institutional design to embedding participation within informal and context-specific practices (Bussu et al., 2022). Accordingly, scholars increasingly argue that the effectiveness of participatory governance should be assessed against not only its normative ideals, but also its behavioral impact − that is, the extent to which it fosters concrete changes in organizational practices and routines (Blanco et al., 2021).

Building on this foundation, the study adopts a behavioral-institutional perspective, understanding participatory governance as a mode of institutional steering within public research organizations that not only directs but also enables participatory practices. Drawing on the literature outlined above, it argues that effective participatory governance must be ethically grounded, strategically embedded and behaviorally feasible.

This study takes participatory governance as a conceptual and normative point of departure to examine how participatory approaches can be developed and embedded within public research institutions. The investigation is based on a four-year research project with a state ministry in Germany. Currently in its second year, the project explores how participatory structures can be developed or strengthened within three research institutes directly affiliated with the ministry; these are known as ministerial research institutes (MRIs).

MRIs are publicly funded research organizations that are directly affiliated with government ministries (Weilert, 2022), but whose work is rarely addressed. Ministerial research institutes are part of Germany’s landscape of nonuniversity public research organizations (Weilert, 2023) and can broadly be compared to public research institutes (PRIs) such as the Leibniz Association in Germany, the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) in France or the US National Laboratories. Despite their heterogeneity, a defining feature of MRIs is their formal affiliation with a specific ministry (Weilert, 2022), for whose area of responsibility they conduct policy-driven research. This institutional anchoring fosters a high degree of thematic specialization and creates structural dependence, as third-party funding plays a comparatively minor role in their overall research portfolio. The MRIs not only conduct scientific research, but also fulfill advisory and service-based roles, working on behalf of both ministerial bodies and the wider public (Wissenschaftsrat, 2021). Owing to their structurally embedded position between scientific autonomy and political accountability, MRIs occupy a hybrid space that raises ethical questions concerning their independence and the potential politicization of the results their research produces (Veit and Ebinger, 2025). In this context, societal participation through participatory governance structures is ethically and institutionally essential, as it helps to reinforce democratic legitimacy, transparency and the societal relevance of these institutes. Given their proximity to political actors, participatory approaches offer a means to democratize knowledge production and credibly navigate the tension between scientific independence and political utility.

Despite widespread acknowledgment of the importance of cross-sectoral collaboration, many public research organizations continue to struggle with putting this into practice. The MRIs within our research project demonstrate strong and long-established ties with politics and industry, for example, but lack structures for engaging a wider base of actors within society. As a result, their approaches to science communication and, in particular, participation remain limited. A conceptual visualization of the current cross-sectoral dynamics, based on the Quadruple-Helix model (see Figure 1), highlights the persistent engagement gap that this study aims to explore.

While MRIs − alongside many other PRIs − are only beginning to acknowledge this gap affecting societal engagement, the MRIs affiliated with the ministry in our case study have already undertaken proactive steps. Within the current Ministerial Research Framework, these institutes are explicitly calling for stronger public engagement and indicate a strategic focus on more inclusive and participatory research governance. However, the institutional structures, procedural models and ethical frameworks required to implement this ambition effectively in day-to-day research practice remain insufficiently developed.

Against this backdrop, this study explores how MRIs can develop participatory governance structures that are effective and feasible in practice. It does so by conducting an analysis guided by the following research questions (RQs):

By addressing these questions, the study contributes to a deeper theoretical understanding and offers practical insights for enhancing participatory governance within ministerial research contexts. Moreover, the findings are not significant for MRIs alone: They are also broadly applicable to other publicly funded research organizations seeking to navigate similar institutional or ethical challenges.

This study uses a qualitative, exploratory-descriptive research design to systematically investigate how societal participation is understood and practiced within German MRIs, and the enabling conditions and ethical considerations that shape these processes. The design combines inductive analysis with a deductive theoretical approach, making it possible to identify emerging themes while also grounding analysis and interpretation in established concepts.

Methodologically, the project is structured as a multiple case study, following the design logic proposed by Yin (2018). This approach is particularly suited to investigating complex, context-dependent institutional phenomena across several real-world settings. Each of the three cases involved were investigated using multiple data sources, including 26 semistructured interviews (primary method), internal and publicly available documents, and observations from three workshops related to the aforementioned research project.

While supplementary materials contributed to contextual understanding, the data collection and analysis sections that follow will primarily focus on the interview data, as this represents the study’s main empirical source.

To capture institutional perspectives on science communication and societal participation in MRIs, this study is based primarily on semistructured expert interviews. The interview format was selected because of its ability to combine thematic structure with openness to the lived experiences and institutional roles of participants (Bogner et al., 2009; Brinkmann and Kvale, 2014). The interview guide was developed in close alignment with the study’s research questions and theoretical framework, and structured around three thematic areas:

1. Conceptual understandings and institutional practices of science communication and societal participation.

2. Perceived barriers and enabling conditions for participatory governance.

3. Both implicit and explicit ethical challenges.

The sample was selected using a purposive sampling strategy, designed to capture diverse organizational perspectives on science communication and societal engagement within MRIs. This approach is commonly used in qualitative research to ensure the inclusion of information-rich cases that are most relevant to the research objectives (Patton, 2015; Yin, 2018). The three MRIs were selected on the basis of their thematic relevance and the openness they demonstrated to reflecting on participatory practices. Based on their roles and responsibilities, participants were selected from a range of functional areas, including institute leadership (three heads of institute), research staff (15 heads of department, three research associates) and units responsible for transfer and communication (seven staff members). This variation in institutional roles, departmental affiliations and seniority levels was intended to ensure both intra-organizational depth and inter-organizational comparability, enabling the study to capture the layered and context-specific nature of participatory practices across MRIs. In total, 26 interviews were conducted with 28 participants; in two cases, interviews were held jointly with two staff members due to shared responsibilities and overlapping roles.

Interviews were conducted in a mixed format, either in person or via video conferencing, depending on participant availability and logistical feasibility. Each interview lasted approximately 60 min. All interviews were audio-recorded with consent and subsequently transcribed verbatim to ensure accuracy and enable detailed qualitative analysis.

To enhance contextual understanding and support the credibility of findings, interview data was triangulated with external documents − including published strategy papers, policy frameworks and communication materials − and with field notes from workshops and public events. These supplementary sources provided insights into how MRIs position themselves and interact with society. Triangulation helped to identify converging themes and contextual contrasts across data sources, thereby strengthening the analytical validity of the study (Bowen, 2009; Flick, 2018).

All research activities were conducted in accordance with standard ethical guidelines for qualitative social research. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to each interview. Participants were informed about the purpose of the study, their right to withdraw at any time and the measures taken to protect their data. All interviews were anonymized during transcription, and all data was stored securely in compliance with data protection regulations.

The interview data was analyzed in line with the general procedures that apply in qualitative content analysis, as outlined by Mayring (2014). This approach provided a structured and rule-based framework for systematically categorizing both explicit and implicit meanings in the data, while remaining sensitive to contextual and institutional nuances. The method was particularly suited to uncovering both individual perceptions and shared organizational patterns across the three participating MRIs.

The coding strategy focused primarily on inductive procedures, allowing key themes to emerge directly from the interview data in relation to the overarching research questions. To complement this data-driven approach with a theoretically grounded perspective, a deductive coding framework was applied to the analysis of the institutional factors facilitating or hindering societal participation (RQ2). The framework was based on the COM-B model (capability, opportunity, motivation – behavior) developed by Michie et al. (2011). The model provides a structured approach to analyzing and developing behavior change interventions − in this case, opening research up to participatory approaches − and has gained broad recognition in scholarly discourse. COM-B conceptualizes behavior as the outcome of three interrelated components, which are defined within this study as follows:

• Capability − referring to the psychological and physical capacity to perform a behavior (e.g. knowledge, skills and communicative competence).

• Opportunity − encompassing institutional conditions that enable or prompt the behavior (e.g. institutional structures, time, funding and access to relevant audiences).

• Motivation − capturing the internal and external processes that direct and energize behavior (e.g. values, beliefs and perceived relevance or reward).

• Behavior − describing the actual behavior and practical implementation of social participation in the MRIs. This shows how the aforementioned institutional and individual conditions (capability, opportunity and motivation) are reflected in practice.

These categories served as analytical lenses for identifying factors that support or inhibit the implementation of participatory practices in MRIs. This enabled a broader understanding of governance − not merely as a matter of formal rules and organizational structures, but as a behaviorally grounded framework that provides the enabling conditions under which participation can be enacted in practice. This perspective does not replace institutional or normative understandings of governance, but complements them by focusing on the behavioral conditions that enable or constrain participatory practice within research organizations.

The analysis was carried out using MAXQDA, which supported systematic coding, memo-writing and the organization of case-based segments. To enhance transparency and analytical reliability, coding processes and category development were discussed within the research team throughout the analysis phase to ensure intersubjective validation and interpretative consistency.

The following analysis is based on aggregated findings across all participating institutes and does not differentiate between individual cases; the aim of this approach is to highlight cross-institutional patterns and shared challenges.

This chapter explores the current understanding of science communication and societal participation within MRIs (see RQ1).

Across all MRIs, science communication is considered highly strategically important. It is seen as a critical component of publicly funded research and has increasing relevance in institutional agendas. A notable shift in perception is emerging − from traditional, unidirectional dissemination of knowledge toward more dialogic, reciprocal modes of communication. Many respondents emphasized the importance of their institutions being recognized as transparent, neutral and reliable interlocutors to the public. Despite this strategic emphasis, conceptual clarity around societal participation remains limited. While the term “participation” is generally viewed positively, its meaning is often vague and lacks operational definition. Few staff members were able to name or describe concrete participatory methods, with citizen science being the only format consistently mentioned as both familiar and feasible. This points to an evident need for further methodological grounding in participatory approaches across MRIs.

In practice, MRIs tend to focus their communication efforts on well-defined, institutionally legitimized target groups. Alongside political actors and ministries, specific sectors are widely recognized as core audiences; they are strongly shaped by political mandates and are the thematic focus of externally funded research projects. By contrast, only select sections of the general public are addressed. Respondents described the general public as diffuse and hard to reach, often mediated through trusted intermediaries such as journalists or public agencies. Consequently, MRIs mainly reach select groups within organized civil society (such as environmental protection associations) or interested citizens: These audiences are often older, socioeconomically advantaged and well-educated. Nevertheless, researchers increasingly acknowledge the growing importance of engaging the public, particularly in societally relevant fields such as nutrition, the environment and sustainability.

Overall, the findings highlight that MRIs place considerable value on science communication and are showing a growing awareness of the importance of societal participation. While public engagement is currently still understood in terms of traditional, one-way communication in many cases, there is an openness to participatory approaches. With more development in methodological expertise and practical experience, however, this area offers significant potential for growth.

While participatory governance is increasingly relevant in strategic agendas and policy frameworks, it is still only translated into day-to-day research practice to a limited extent. Rather than examining governance solely as a formal structure or policy domain, this chapter adopts a behaviorally grounded perspective based on the COM-B model (see Section 2.3) and investigates which conditions enable or constrain the enactment of societal participation in German MRIs (see RQ2).

The first dimension of the COM-B framework refers to the psychological and physical capacity to perform a specific behavior − in this context, the ability of researchers to conceptualize, design and implement societal participation in research processes.

Researchers report a lack of routine and experience in addressing the general public, largely due to a traditional focus on political actors, sector-specific stakeholders and the scientific community itself. This gap is particularly evident when it comes to translating complex research projects and findings into language and formats that are accessible, comprehensible and engaging for societal actors. In many cases, outreach materials and publications are described as outdated, overly technical or visually unappealing.

The challenges intensify when researchers engage with emotionally or politically sensitive topics. They note particular difficulties in communicating with nonexpert audiences, especially when scientific content is perceived as complex or controversial. Although there is a strong awareness of the importance of such communication, there is often criticism that academic training does not sufficiently prepare researchers for it. As a result, many feel ill-equipped to navigate these interactions effectively.

Expanding participatory approaches brings an additional layer of expectation − not only to communicate final research outcomes, but also to involve society in ongoing, often incomplete, research processes. Communicating preliminary or uncertain results is particularly challenging in this context. Researchers report a lack of experience, confidence and skills in engaging with the public under such conditions, especially when the subject matter is socially or politically controversial.

In addition to the aforementioned importance of science communication and the lack of a systematic focus on societal participation, there is also a significant lack of expertise in developing bidirectional communication and participatory formats. Consequently, there is often limited knowledge about the concept of public engagement and the practical implementation of participatory approaches.

Many researchers express uncertainty about which topics are fundamentally suitable for participatory procedures and which formats are appropriate or effective. There is also often a lack of clarity about when and where participation can be meaningfully integrated into the research process, and how to identify and involve relevant societal actors.

The term “participation” and the concept underpinning it frequently appear diffuse and underdefined. While “participation” is generally viewed positively, researchers often lack a clear understanding of what it entails in principle and how it can be concretely applied in the specific context of ministerial research. Explicit knowledge of participatory methods and formats is limited. Among them, citizen science stands out as one of the few widely known and accepted formats, due to its established use and clearly defined roles within research communities. Other approaches, by contrast, are scarcely known and are often perceived by researchers as abstract or difficult to grasp − further emphasizing the conceptual and methodological uncertainty surrounding participation.

The second dimension of the COM-B model − opportunity − addresses the institutional conditions that either enable or constrain behavior. In the context of societal participation within MRIs, conditions have been defined on three interrelated levels:

1. Macro level: External and policy-related conditions that influence MRIs from outside the institutes.

2. Meso level: Internal strategic and structural arrangements at the level of the research institutes themselves.

3. Micro level: Operational and project-level factors that affect researchers’ capacity to implement public engagement in practice.

At the macro level, it is evident that MRIs are strongly influenced by external governance logics. As the primary source of funding, the ministry responsible in each case sets both explicit and implicit expectations for research and science communication. While the current Ministerial Research Framework explicitly states an ambition to strengthen societal participation in research, the structural conditions required to put this into practice are still lacking. The thematic focus and content of available funding programs, along with their associated criteria and financial logics, currently provide little systematic incentive to embed societal participation into everyday research practice. Additionally, there are no mandatory requirements for integrating participatory elements into project proposals or evaluations. Even if a ministry has a proactive and progressive stance, implementing participatory approaches may be hampered by administrative barriers: Reporting obligations, lengthy decision-making processes and the overall sluggishness of ministerial bureaucracy slow down institutional change and prevent new formats from being established.

Within the MRIs, there is a strong awareness − especially among institute leadership − of the societal responsibility that research has and the associated need for science communication. Numerous interviewees emphasized their institutions’ commitment to acting as transparent, neutral and reliable partners to the public. However, efforts to strengthen societal participation have not yet been systematically or strategically embedded in mission statements, organizational structures or decision-making processes. While there have been some initial attempts to promote bidirectional exchange with society, these have remained mostly ad hoc and project-based. There is a general lack of institutional anchoring for such activities in the form of fixed resource allocations, responsibilities or accountability mechanisms.

These structural gaps point to three central areas for action: First, there is a need for an evaluation tool that helps identify which research topics or projects are particularly suitable or relevant for societal participation. Second, appropriate conditions must be created to ensure that communicative and participatory activities are not treated as add-ons, but are systematically supported through project funding or personnel resources. Third, internal support mechanisms must be developed or expanded; these may include targeted training or institutional advisory services on communication or societal participation, for example.

Addressing these areas by developing standardized processes and formats is necessary but challenging, particularly since the themes addressed and structures present between and within institutes (such as departments and research areas) are highly heterogeneous.

At the operational level, there is clear tension between ambition and implementation. The heavy workload of researchers and the absence of clearly defined responsibilities mean that science communication and societal participation are often treated as secondary, additional tasks in day-to-day research practice. Participatory elements are rarely integrated as core components during project planning. A lack of time, limited resources and uncertainty regarding appropriate formats, target groups and timing prevent engagement activities from being practiced systematically.

At the same time, the interviews revealed a growing interest in and openness toward participation − though often without a clear idea of how such approaches could be concretely and meaningfully integrated into the interviewees’ own research. This is further complicated by the highly specialized nature of the themes that many research projects address: While they may have societal relevance, opportunities for engaging with the public in these areas are not always readily apparent. Concerns were also raised about the quality and representative nature of societal input, particularly regarding the risk of vocal minorities dominating discussions or the lack of relevant expertise among participants. Accordingly, many interviewees expressed a strong desire for clear, practical guidance outlining when, how and with what purpose participatory formats should be meaningfully and effectively applied.

In the context of this study, the third dimension of the COM-B model focuses on the intrinsic motivations and extrinsic incentives that influence willingness to engage in societal participation.

A primary motivational driver is the perceived potential of societal participation to enhance the societal acceptance and legitimacy of their research activities and findings. Participation is also seen as enabling a more holistic approach to research topics, particularly in areas closely tied to everyday life, public policy or environmental concerns. Emotionally resonant or controversial topics were regarded as especially promising for stimulating public dialogue and engagement. Furthermore, getting societal actors involved early on is viewed as a means of building trust and preventing public backlash later in the research process.

Findings implicitly suggest that motivation increases under certain conditions − namely, when participatory formats are clearly structured, target groups are well defined and the added value of participation is evident (e.g. policy impact, research uptake or societal resonance).

At the same time, there are several barriers limiting intrinsic motivation. When participation appears to lack clear goals or have little tangible influence on research outcomes, it is often perceived as lacking meaningful value. Respondents also expressed concerns regarding reputational risks, particularly when communicating preliminary or uncertain findings. There is widespread apprehension that early engagement could lead to misinterpretation, politicization or distortion of research results − especially by vocal minority groups. Additionally, some researchers worry that public input may lead to ancillary conflicts, dilute the scientific focus or even destabilize established workflows.

In terms of external factors, several respondents highlighted the importance of tangible, visible outcomes − such as policy relevance, media coverage or recognition − as key motivators. Short-term feedback loops of this kind can significantly boost motivation by demonstrating the value and visibility of engagement efforts.

Another frequently mentioned enabler was the need for better alignment between institutional expectations and operational realities. Motivation is perceived to be significantly higher when participatory work is adequately resourced − in terms of time, funding and institutional support − and when its relevance is recognized as part of everyday research practice.

Conversely, a major demotivator lies in the lack of formal recognition for participatory work. Societal engagement is rarely reflected in performance appraisals, funding decisions or career advancement structures. As a result, it is often seen as low-status work − symbolic rather than substantive − and primarily driven by individual conviction rather than institutional support.

Finally, participation is frequently associated with additional workload and administrative burden, particularly in contexts already marked by time constraints and staff shortages. Without explicit institutional support and recognition, participatory activities remain peripheral and are rarely prioritized within the standard workflow.

Currently, many researchers are at the beginning stages of developing the conceptual understanding, practical experience and methodological skills needed to open research processes to societal participation. While there is a clear strategic ambition to enhance public engagement, support structures at macro, meso and micro levels are still evolving. Participation is broadly welcomed and seen as valuable, yet it often lacks the short-term incentives or institutional recognition that would help embed it more fully into practice. The findings emphasize that the best way to encourage participatory behavior in ministerial research is to foster capability, opportunity and motivation simultaneously. This calls for the development of context-sensitive, behaviorally informed governance frameworks that support participation in a way that aligns with institutional missions and enables long-term impact.

This section addresses ethical considerations, especially those that arise from the unique position occupied by MRIs at the intersection of scientific knowledge production, policy advising and societal engagement (see RQ3). The analysis highlights how proximity to political structures, challenges of representation and conditions for legitimate participation shape the ethical landscape in which participatory governance must be negotiated.

One of the defining features of MRIs is their direct affiliation with a ministry. This proximity entails both strategic alignment and financial dependency, which creates implicit and explicit expectations regarding research agendas and knowledge transfer. The ministry acts as the central funding body and sets thematic priorities through the Ministerial Research Framework. Consequently, MRIs perceive it as having a clear steering role that establishes a set of boundaries within which research questions are defined. Researchers described a sense of power asymmetry, noting that while they retain autonomy in scientific methods and interpretation, their room for initiative and experimentation may be constrained by politically driven agendas or shifting policy preferences. This tension becomes particularly visible in the reception and political use of research findings. While some political actors engage constructively with results − even when they challenge prevailing views − others may perceive critical findings as a threat to political positioning. This duality creates uncertainty about how research is interpreted and applied once it enters the political domain. Compared to other public research organizations, MRIs report more pronounced tension between independence and policy alignment. There is a general understanding that research should be societally and politically relevant, but also concern that findings may be expected to align with broader political narratives or be framed in ways that facilitate implementation or public communication.

A second set of ethical considerations relates to the representation and legitimacy of societal actors involved in participatory processes. Interviewees widely acknowledged that public engagement is currently limited to a narrow segment of the population − typically the interested public (see Section 3.2).

This selective participation raises concerns about representational imbalance and potential bias. Researchers expressed unease about the dominance of vocal minority groups who may not reflect broader societal views, but nevertheless exert significant influence in participatory settings. It was pointed out that there is a potential risk of some societal representatives being ideologically driven, underqualified in technical terms or unwilling to engage with the complexity of scientific processes. As a result, researchers question the epistemic legitimacy of these representatives’ participation and highlight the importance of differentiated engagement strategies that avoid overgeneralizing the public. Moreover, top-down communication remains the dominant mode in most MRIs. While information is shared with the public, little structured effort is made to incorporate feedback or include external perspectives in planning and conducting research. From an ethical standpoint, this raises concerns about tokenism and missed opportunities for societal learning and deliberation. Despite these challenges, researchers consistently emphasized the critical role that public acceptance plays in the effectiveness and legitimacy of policy-relevant research. Without societal resonance and buy-in, even technically sound recommendations risk being ignored or contested. For this reason, the broader strategic objective of enhancing public trust through engagement is widely accepted − but seen as requiring careful and context-sensitive design and support.

The interviews show a consensus that societal participation holds more promise than risk − provided certain institutional and ethical preconditions are met.

The first necessary precondition is the selective and needs-based application of participatory formats. Not all research topics lend themselves to public involvement, and there is widespread agreement that participation should not be mandated across the board. Instead, its deployment should be guided by criteria such as public relevance, normative stakes and the potential for mutual learning. Researchers cautioned against the overextension of participatory expectations, warning that poorly targeted or superficial engagement can dilute focus, create unrealistic demands and ultimately erode credibility on both sides.

The second necessary condition is the establishment of clear institutional frameworks. Effective expectation management was identified as a core ethical instrument to ensure transparency about the aims, scope and limits of public involvement. Without such clarity, participation risks breeding frustration and mistrust − especially when outcomes fail to match the expectations of either researchers or participants. Finally, the lack of dedicated resources and structural support for participation is an ethical concern in itself. Engagement cannot be expected − let alone delivered meaningfully − without sufficient time, funding, institutional infrastructure and recognition. The responsibility to provide such conditions lies not only with individual researchers, but also with governing institutions and funding bodies. Participants highlighted the urgent need for clear criteria and institutional guidance on when and how to design effective and legitimate participatory processes.

The overarching aim of this study is to contribute to the advancement of participatory practices in research institutions. To this end, it investigates the institutional and ethical challenges that must be addressed to enable the development and implementation of practically feasible participatory governance structures within MRIs. Specifically, the study examines prevailing understandings of science communication and societal participation (RQ1), identifies institutional and behavioral conditions that facilitate or hinder participatory practices (RQ2) and explores the ethical considerations that arise for MRIs at the intersection of research, policy advising and societal involvement (RQ3).

The findings reveal a persistent gap between the normative commitment to societal participation and putting this into practice − but they also provide constructive guidance on how progress can be made by leveraging existing capacities and initiatives. While participation is generally valued, conceptual clarity is lacking, and existing practices remain predominantly rooted in one-way communication. Engagement efforts tend to focus on policy and sectoral stakeholders, with civil society actors rarely regarded as equally relevant. The application of the COM-B model reveals that participatory practices are shaped by a complex interplay of individual capabilities, institutional opportunities and motivational factors. These include limited methodological and dialogic competences (capability), a lack of strategic and structural anchoring and support (opportunity), as well as insufficient incentives or recognition structures (motivation). At the same time, there are ethical concerns about the political proximity of MRIs and the ethical design of participatory approaches. Despite these challenges, respondents widely agree that, under appropriate institutional and ethical conditions, participation holds significant potential to enhance the societal relevance and responsiveness of research.

The findings of this study align with and further enrich existing research on public engagement and participatory governance. In this section, selected findings are mapped onto established theoretical perspectives and frameworks.

The findings of this study also corroborate the key structural and epistemic barriers to societal engagement that are being discussed in current science communication research and were set out in the introduction. Consistent with Humm et al. (2024), the interviews suggest that outreach efforts tend to reach predominantly interested citizens who are socioeconomically advantaged. Moreover, in line with Ziegler and Fischer (2020), concerns about epistemic asymmetries and the fear of misinterpretation were found to discourage researchers from engaging in open public dialogue, especially when addressing polarizing or controversial topics. This is accompanied by researchers’ doubts regarding the legitimacy of certain societal voices – a phenomenon that Fricker (2007) conceptualizes as testimonial injustice. Such dynamics are less a reflection of individual shortcomings and more indicative of structural features of the research system. Meaningful participation requires not only an institutional openness to external perspectives but also targeted measures to compensate for structural inequalities so that, as the interviews emphasize, discourse is not dominated by particularly vocal groups (Young, 2002). Moreover, organizational structures, institutional cultures, resource availability and political frameworks are key determinants of successful participation, as emphasized not only by Migchelbrink and Van de Walle (2021) but also by the interviewees in this study. In the context of ministerial research, these factors are largely shaped by the respective ministries, meaning that enabling conditions for participation can only be created in close alignment with them. This observation extends beyond ministerial research: studies demonstrate that genuine participation requires systemic change and adjustments to research programs, including at the European level (Stilgoe et al., 2013). As Young’s and Tanner’s (2023) analysis of citizen engagement in US environmental policy illustrates, even well-designed participatory processes often remain constrained by bureaucratic discretion, with decision-making power ultimately concentrated within administrative structures. This finding resonates with our interview data, which reveal similar power asymmetries between society and ministerial research institutes. As a result, in the absence of systemic and institutional changes, participatory initiatives are likely to remain symbolic and tokenistic rather than genuinely influential. These dynamics are further reinforced by institutional conditions: As the Wissenschaftsrat (German Science and Humanities Council) (2021) has noted, and as the findings of this study affirm regarding societal participation, science communication remains weakly embedded in organizational structures, often lacking dedicated resources, formal training and institutional incentives. The results of the study can also be seen as closely intertwined with issues of (de)colonization of knowledge, because epistemic injustice, categories of difference and the disconnect between research and communities influence participatory processes (Cummings et al., 2021). To resolve the associated inequalities, both institutional actors and scholars themselves need to take action (ibid).

Although frameworks for assessing institutional support for public engagement are becoming more relevant, there are still few established models that enable systematic investigation. One of the few widely used approaches is the EDGE tool, developed by the UK’s National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement (2025). The tool offers a structured framework for evaluating public engagement culture, particularly in higher education institutions. While the EDGE tool provides a detailed yet narrow framework for assessing institutional support from a cultural perspective in higher education, the COM-B-based approach applied in this study allows for a more exploratory and less deductive analysis. In line with current discussions in the literature, this approach makes it possible to pay particular attention to both the behavioral perspective and the broader institutional environment (Bussu et al., 2022; Blanco et al., 2021). Including the institutional environment in the analysis has proven especially valuable for MRIs, whose unique proximity to political actors generates specific institutional characteristics and dependencies (see Chapter 3.3).

As discussed in the introduction, recent literature highlights a shift from focusing solely on the institutional design of participatory governance to embedding the concept in informal and context-specific practices, within both institutions and their broader institutional environments (Bussu et al., 2022). Furthermore, it is argued that the effectiveness of participatory governance should be evaluated not only against its normative ideals, but also in terms of its behavioral impact (Blanco et al., 2021). Additionally, ethical considerations − such as those highlighted by Young (2002) from the perspective of inclusive democracy − must be incorporated to guide the development and implementation of participatory governance. In line with this, McNulty and Wampler (2015) state that the goal of future research should be to develop better policies and practices to guide participatory approaches in addressing pressing societal challenges.

Against this backdrop, the final research question (RQ4) arises: How can effective participatory governance be designed and embedded within MRIs?

Based on the literature discussed and empirical findings, this study argues that effective participatory governance must be guided by three fundamental principles:

1. Strategic embeddedness:

It is essential to integrate participatory governance into the overarching goals, structures and processes of an institution. Participation must not remain an isolated project, but should instead become an integral part of institutional and organizational strategies.

1. Behavioral feasibility:

Putting participatory processes into practice relies on formal and informal conditions that make the processes feasible and attractive. These include resources, competencies and motivational factors.

1. Ethical grounding:

Participatory governance must be rooted in the principles of fairness, inclusion and epistemic respect, and create spaces that enable legitimate and meaningful participation.

These principles must be consistently applied not only at the meso level (organizational/institutional), but also at the macro level (systemic/policy) and the micro level (individual/project-based) to ensure coherence and effectiveness across the entire institutional landscape. Due to the complexity and the multilayered nature of participatory governance, a matrix model is proposed that systematically integrates both the key principles and the relevant analytical levels.

The model is structured as follows:

1. Horizontal axis:

Differentiation according to the principles of effective participatory governance.

• Strategic embeddedness

• Behavioral preconditions (COM-B)

1. Vertical axis:

Differentiation according to analytical levels.

• Macro (systemic/policy)

• Meso (organizational/institutional)

• Micro (individual/project-based)

1. Overarching dimension:

While the principles and levels of participatory governance are systematically mapped within the matrix, ethics stands out as an overarching, all-encompassing dimension. It provides the normative framework within which all participatory activities and decisions are reflected upon and responsibly designed.

The model can be visualized as a matrix (see Figure 2) in which the cells are populated with specific examples of implementation, challenges or enabling conditions for each level and principle. The ethical framework visibly surrounds the entire model, highlighting the transversal significance of ethical reflection.

By systematically assigning the principles of effective participatory governance to the different institutional levels, the matrix model makes it possible to identify key success factors, existing gaps and key leverage points for designing and implementing participatory approaches in publicly funded research organizations.

The matrix model provides a structured lens for systematically mapping and analyzing the barriers to and enablers of participatory governance revealed by the empirical data. With concrete findings assigned to the different matrix dimensions, the framework helps to identify critical gaps and leverage points at the macro, meso and micro levels. Figure 3 illustrates some examples of findings from the study as they relate to each matrix field.

Building on the analytical function of the matrix model, a promising avenue for further development lies in its operationalization. By expanding the matrix to add concrete fields for targets, indicators and actions, the framework can be transformed from a tool for reflection and analysis into a guide for implementation. This operationalization would enable research institutions and their stakeholders to systematically define desired outcomes, measurable indicators of progress and specific steps for action at each level.

An approach of this kind can be particularly valuable in collaborative settings − for example, within the context of participatory workshops. Here, the matrix can be used as a facilitation tool, helping participants to jointly identify goals, select relevant indicators and co-develop actionable measures tailored to a specific context. This structured process not only fosters shared understanding and commitment, but also supports the ongoing evaluation and adaptation of participatory governance structures.

The empirical findings of this study suggest that strengthening participatory governance in research organizations may require not only enhanced methodological skills and individual commitment, but also strategic, behavioral and ethical embedding at all levels of the research system. Based on these insights, the matrix model developed here could serve as a conceptual framework for systematically mapping barriers to and enablers of participation, and identifying potential leverage points for intervention.

The model could help MRIs structure internal reflection, inform the design of institutional participation strategies and guide capacity-building initiatives. For funding bodies and ministries, the model might offer a useful lens for developing clearer objectives, more flexible guidelines and tailored incentive structures to foster participation. It may also have broader applicability for research systems beyond the immediate study context, especially those aiming to move participatory approaches from ad hoc projects toward more systemic institutional practice. Moreover, operationalizing the matrix with targets, indicators and actions − emerging from workshops or strategy processes, for example − could make the framework a tool for ongoing evaluation and adaptive management of participatory governance.

Building on this, the model may serve as a foundation for designing future research in a more inclusive way and for systematically integrating societal perspectives and demands across different levels of governance: macro (e.g. research agenda-setting); meso (e.g. deliberation on research priorities); and micro (e.g. involvement in project planning, implementation and dissemination). Future studies could explore how participation can be meaningfully embedded and operationalized at these levels, using the model to identify leverage points for creating supportive structures and practices. In doing so, it can help address barriers such as power imbalances between societal actors, research institutes and ministries, while primarily serving as a tool to explore and foster more genuine and impactful participation across research and innovation systems.

Nevertheless, it is important to emphasize that the model remains conceptual at this stage. Its practical value, applicability and effectiveness need to be assessed through future research and real-world piloting. The matrix should therefore be understood as a starting point for further empirical investigation.

Several limitations should be acknowledged. The empirical study focused on MRIs, whose specific organizational and political context may restrict the extent to which the findings can be applied more widely. Structural changes might be more easily achieved in this relatively compact system than in more fragmented research landscapes.

Furthermore, the study captured primarily the perspectives of research institution staff, with limited inclusion of civil society or political actors. As such, important viewpoints may be underrepresented. As a result, the implications section draws on the matrix model to propose approaches for more inclusive future research.

Finally, while the matrix model emerged inductively from the empirical material, it has not yet been applied or tested in practice. Future research should therefore explore its usefulness and adaptability in other contexts, include a broader range of stakeholders, and examine how participatory governance frameworks function not only in planning but also in implementation.