Author: Tome Sandevski

How to Understand Policymaking: A Guide to Key Information Sources – From Newsletters to Personal Conversations

Written by Tome Sandevski. Posted in Content, Cross-Cutting Issues OV. No Comments on How to Understand Policymaking: A Guide to Key Information Sources – From Newsletters to Personal Conversations

Key features in a nutshell

Organisation charts, key documents, and specialised media can give you a fast, low-cost overview of any policy field
Regularly reading key documents and policy briefs has a useful side effect: it gets you used to policy language over time
Strategy papers, action plans, and calls for evidence tell you what policymakers actually need; check these actively rather than waiting to be approached
Personal conversations and policy events give you access to implicit knowledge that no published document can offer; it’s perfectly normal to approach policymakers directly, just as lobbyists do all the time.
None of this requires a huge investment of time: most of it fits into hours or days, not weeks

What is the issue?

Researchers who are new to policy engagement often ask a fundamental question: Where do I start? This question is far from trivial. In practice, that question breaks down into several more specific ones:

How can I quickly understand policy priorities and policymaking processes?
How do I find out if my expertise is relevant to policymakers?
How do I learn about possible engagement opportunities?
How do I identify the right target groups for my expertise in policymaking institutions?
How can I make sense of policy jargon?
How can I do all of this in a time-efficient way?

This guide provides a structured overview of the key information sources that help answer these questions.

Organisational charts (Organigrams)

Think about the core topics of your research (e.g., cybersecurity, environment, mobility, or health). Search online for local authorities, regional or national ministries, European Commission Directorates-General (DGs), and international organisations dealing with these issues, and locate the organisational charts on their websites.

Organisational charts are invaluable for two main reasons:

First, quick Overview & Priority Assessment: You get a rapid overview of the responsibilities of policymaking institutions. They also help you gauge how prioritised a topic is: For instance, are multiple specialised units dedicated to different aspects of the topic, or is it handled by a single unit alongside many other issues?

Second, target Identification: You can pinpoint the exact units to invite to events, request meetings with, or inform about your research findings.

Tip: Compare organisational charts across regional or national ministries, European Commission DGs, and international organisations like the WHO or OECD. If you are unsure which department leads a crosscutting issue (e.g., environmental taxation or cybersecurity), check ministries in related domains as well.

Don’t be intimidated! Browsing organisational charts for the first time can feel overwhelming, especially when navigating large PDF files. Feeling a bit confused is completely normal. Many policy professionals admit it takes them time to locate the right contacts within policymaking institutions!

Parliaments: Take a look at overviews of parliamentary committees. In many political systems, parliamentary committees mirror the portfolios of executive ministries.

Key documents: Key documents offer strategic insights into the priorities and work plans of governments, political parties, and international bodies. These include:

Party platforms / party manifestos
Government programmes (e.g., Programme for Government 2025: Securing Ireland’s Future; A Strong and Committed Finland)
Strategies, action plans, and roadmaps (e.g., EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030; WHO Global Strategy on Digital Health 2020–2027; Digital Switzerland Strategy)
Legislative acts and draft legislation
Evaluations and impact assessments
Background briefings on policy issues, usually published on institutional websites
Calls for evidence, public consultations, and calls for commissioned research (e.g., EU portal ‘Have Your Say’; Areas of Research Interests (ARIs) in the United Kingdom)
Analyses by policymaking institutions and expert bodies (e.g. OECD reports; IPCC reports)

A note of caution: Not every measure outlined in a policy document is implemented exactly as drafted. Political priorities can shift rapidly, particularly during crises (e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic or Russia’s attack on Ukraine). Nevertheless, key documents are essential for research institutions planning medium-term policy engagement activities.

Policy analyses & position papers by think tanks, NGOs, and associations

Scientific research is not the only source of external information for policymakers. Think tanks, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), industry associations, and foundations regularly publish policy briefs and position papers.

Reading these publications helps you analyse policy developments and understand stakeholder demands. It is well worth mapping the key stakeholders in your field. If your research covers environmental policy, regularly review publications from business associations, environmental NGOs, and specialised think tanks. You can easily map these organisations using search engines or AI tools.

Newsletters, press releases, and social media

Subscribe to official newsletters and press releases and follow relevant policymakers and key stakeholders on social media. These channels provide timely updates on current developments and upcoming policy events.

Whom to follow?

Political parties
Members of Parliament (MPs): Focus on influential MPs, such as party spokespersons for your field or committee chairs; additionally, always follow the MPs representing the electoral constituency where your research institution is based
Public institutions: Local authorities, regional and national ministries, executive agencies, and arms-length bodies; depending on your focus, subscribe to updates from European Commission Directorates-General and international bodies
Key stakeholders: High-profile think tanks, industry associations, NGOs, and foundations active in your field (e.g., biodiversity, cybersecurity)

Media & specialised news services

Monitor major news outlets and specialised media formats. Platforms like Politico Pro or Euractiv offer deep-dive background reporting on EU policy developments. Similar specialised services exist at the national level (e.g., Table.Media or Tagesspiegel Background in Germany). Check with your university library to see which subscriptions, news services, or media databases (e.g., Nexis Uni) you can access free of charge under institutional licences.

Policy events and personal conversations

Especially capital cities host numerous events bringing together policymakers, researchers, and experts from think tanks and civil society.

Participating in policy events is crucial for two reasons:

Direct Networking: You can connect directly with policymakers and peers. Prepare a concise elevator pitch in advance. Make it a habit to exchange contact details after a meaningful conversation – and follow up! Connecting at events and following up a few weeks later is often far more time- and cost-effective than organising your own standalone events without existing policy networks.
Accessing Implicit Knowledge: Public documents, newsletters, and press releases only tell part of the story. Policymakers hold substantial implicit and contextual knowledge that can only be accessed through direct dialogue.

Don’t be shy: Its standard practice to identify relevant officials via organisational charts, contact them directly, and request a brief personal or virtual introductory meeting. Lobbyists and advocacy groups do this all the time – researchers should feel equally confident in reaching out with their expertise.

These strategies may seem time-consuming at first, but they yield significant long-term results. Regularly reading policy documents, think tank briefs, and specialised newsletters has another major benefit: it helps researchers become fluent in policy jargon.

Tasks and resources

Researchers

Set aside regular time – even just 30 minutes a week – to read relevant newsletters and scan key documents and policy publications
Identify a handful of institutions, committees, or individual policymakers to follow closely, rather than trying to track everything
Attend policy events, prepare a short elevator pitch, and follow up with new contacts afterwards

Research managers and knowledge mobilisers

Curate and share relevant newsletters, key documents, and event information with researchers at their institutions
Explain the difference between various types of policy documents
Help researchers identify the right policymaking institutions and contacts for their field
Provide access to specialised media and information services through, for example, library subscriptions

Policymakers

Keep organisation charts, key documents, and contact information publicly accessible and up to date
Maintain an active newsletter or social media presence
Stay open to direct meeting requests from researchers

Sources and further reading

Department of the Taoiseach (2025), Programme for Government 2025. Securing Ireland’s Future, https://assets.gov.ie/static/documents/programme-for-government-securing-irelands-future.pdf accessed on 12 August 2026.

European Commission (2020), Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/biodiversity-strategy-2030_en, accessed on 12 August 2026.

French, M.; Hawkins, M. (2024), Areas of Research Interest: A Practical Guide, https://upen.ac.uk/resources/areas-of-research-interest-a-practical-guide/, accessed on 12 August 2026.

Federal Council (2026), Digital Switzerland Strategy 2026, https://www.bk.admin.ch/en/digital-switzerland , accessed on 12 August 2026.

Finnish Government (2023), A Strong and Committed Finland. Programme of Prime Minister Petteri Orpo’s Government, https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/server/api/core/bitstreams/ad4dc8fd-afad-4b21-b7c2-c197c8e4b378/content, accessed on 12 August 2026.

WHO (2025), Global Strategy on Digital Health 2020-2027, https://iris.who.int/server/api/core/bitstreams/a64d584f-015b-471f-9d86-9ea263cfb516/content, accessed on 12 August 2026.

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Do you want to share your experience in policy engagement? Do you think about contributing to the policy engagement toolkit? Feel free to contact Tome Sandevski via science-policy@pvw.uni-frankfurt.de

Mobilising Knowledge, Supporting Researchers: How a Lean Policy Engagement Unit Drives Policy Dialogue

Written by Tome Sandevski. Posted in Actors & Institutions cs - english, Content. No Comments on Mobilising Knowledge, Supporting Researchers: How a Lean Policy Engagement Unit Drives Policy Dialogue

Key features in a nutshell

High Impact, Lean Setup: Proves that institutional policy engagement does not require a massive infrastructure: a dedicated team of 1-2 full-time equivalents can connect hundreds of researchers and policymakers
Full-Service Brokerage: Minimizes administrative burdens for researchers and policymakers by handling logistics, identification of science–policy topics, match-making, and stakeholder mapping
Building science for policy skills: The policy engagement unit has facilitated numerous workshops on science for policy skills and careers in policy institutions; it also provides how-to guides on various aspects of policy engagement
Proven Track Record: Since 2016, facilitated over 3,500 bilateral meetings (connecting 400 policymakers with 850 researchers), organized 42 policy events, and trained over 400 researchers

How does the unit work?

Initially launched in 2016 as the office for the Mercator Science-Policy Fellowship-Programme, the the unit evolved into a permanent, central Science–Policy Interface. By securing additional grants (e.g., from the EU and the German Federal Ministry of Research), it broadened its scope into a full-fledged service unit for the three partner universities.

Today, the unit operates across three core pillars:

Matchmaking & Science–Policy Dialogue

Targeted Matchmaking: Acts as a single point of contact (one-stop shop). When policymakers need academic expertise, the unit maps relevant researchers. Conversely, when researchers wish to reach decision-makers, the unit leverages its network.

Format Facilitation: Coordinates everything from 1:1 meetings to lab visits, multi-stakeholder workshops, panel discussions on topics like AI, climate change, medicine of the future, social cohesion, populism, cybersecurity, social inequality, and environmental law in the Frankfurt/Rhine-Main area, Berlin, and Brussels.

Capacity Building & Skills Training

Workshops: Delivers interactive sessions on policy engagement, navigating political institutions, and career paths in policymaking institutions; the policy engagement unit has facilitated 17 workshops on science for policy skills and careers in policy institutions with more than 400 researchers participating

Resources: Authors practical guides and toolkits (including the ENGAGEgreen Policy Engagement Toolkit) to equip researchers with actionable advice

Strategic Integration into Research Grants

Early-Stage Cocreation: Encourages researchers to involve policymakers right from the proposal stage, helping refine research questions, identify policy relevance early, and secure funding dedicated to impact and dissemination; many researchers still regard policy engagement as a one-way street and do not feel that their research can benefit from engaging with policymakers by learning about new perspectives, topics, research questions, or hypotheses; many policy engagement activities, like policy events, take place at the end of projects; by conducting policy engagement early on, researchers can both maximize the benefit of the policy engagement for their research as well as the possible impact on policymaking by staying in touch with policymakers throughout the research projects rather than at the end

Key takeaways for your institution

Start lean, not big: You don’t need a large department to begin; a single fellowship program or project grant can be the seed for a permanent structure;. our unit started as a one-off Mercator-funded fellowship office in 2016
Take logistics off researchers’ plates: The single biggest lever for researcher participation is removing organizational friction; if your institution handles scheduling, room bookings, travel, and catering centrally, researchers are far more likely to say yes to policy engagement.
Tell researchers support structures and funding exist for this: Many researchers are not aware of support structures at their institutions; also, many researchers simply don’t know that policy engagement activities can be funded as part of their grants; a short, proactive briefing on funding lines for engagement and dissemination can unlock activity that would otherwise never happen

Tasks and resources: Brief description of the tasks and resources needed by scientists, knowledge exchange officers/research managers and policymakers

Research managers and knowledge mobilisers

The unit has a dedicated team of one to two staff to connect researchers and policymakers. Staff are regularly in touch with both groups to identify topics for policy events and to organize bilateral meetings as well as policy events.

Researchers

The unit usually approaches researchers about participating as experts in one-to-one meetings with policymakers or at policy events. Because the unit handles organizational matters – scheduling, room bookings, travel, catering – researchers can focus on content rather than logistics. Researchers also approach the unit when they need contacts in policymaking institutions.

Policymakers

The unit regularly invites policymakers to take part in dialogue formats at the Rhine-Main Universities. Most either attend policy events such as workshops or lab visits or spend up to two days at the universities conducting face-to-face meetings with researchers. Policymakers also approach the unit when they need expertise, in which case the unit identifies suitable experts at the Rhine-Main Universities.

Sources and further reading

Sandevski, Tome (2023), How the Rhine-Main Universities promote knowledge exchange between researchers and policymakers via face-to-face meetings (accessed on 10 July 2026).

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

From Mission Statements to Mailing Lists

Written by Chloe Hill. Posted in Actors & Institutions OV, Content. No Comments on From Mission Statements to Mailing Lists

Ten Ways Research Institutions and Learned Societies Can Support Policy Engagement

Key features in a nutshell

Research institutions and learned societies can actively shape academic policy engagement rather than leaving it to individual researchers’ initiative — through organisational and financial support, training programmes, internal recognition structures
Institutions and learned societies don’t need large budgets to get started: while employing a knowledge mobiliser or brokerage team can be incredibly beneficial, many effective initiatives, such as curating policymaker mailing lists, offering funding-application advice, or hosting lunch talks, require limited resources and can be embedded into existing structures.

By recognising policy engagement in career progression, funding decisions, and institutional strategy, research institutions and learned societies can move it from a marginal activity to a core part of their institutional mission, alongside research and teaching.

How can research institutions and learned societies promote academic policy engagement?

Provide researchers with policy insights: Researchers generally do not have the time to understand policymaking processes, policy priorities, windows of opportunity, and knowledge exchange formats. Knowledge mobilisers at research institutions and learned societies — such as policy engagement officers, communication staff, or outreach managers — can support researchers in this regard. By sharing policy developments, key priorities, and calls for evidence, these knowledge mobilisers and research institutions more broadly can help their communities understand where and when more scientific evidence is needed by policymakers. This information can be shared through webinars, newsletters, and information hubs.
Support knowledge synthesis, translation, and exchange: In addition to sharing relevant policy developments, knowledge mobilisers can help researchers translate academic expertise into policy formats like policy briefs, policy reports, or presentations. They can help researchers identify relevant policymakers in parliaments, ministries, EU institutions, or international organisations and facilitate their initial interactions. They can also provide hands-on support, such as organising policy events, curating mailing lists, or editing policy publications.

Beyond supporting individual researchers, research institutions and learned societies can create and facilitate groups of researchers to provide scientific evidence. These groups or task forces are often created to provide evidence on a specific policy area and ideally include researchers from a range of different, relevant scientific disciplines. Administrative support from institutional knowledge mobilisers helps these groups by coordinating meetings, strategically steering the direction of group activities and tasks, and disseminating the scientific evidence to the intended policy audience.

Provide financial support: Research institutions and learned societies can establish internal funds for researchers to engage in policy activities, such as organising policy events or travelling to capitals to engage with policymakers. Goethe University Frankfurt, for instance, provides funds specifically for events in Brussels. Policy engagement can also be built into performance agreements between university leadership and academic units or considered as a criterion for performance-related pay — mechanisms that exist, in various forms, across many European higher education systems (e.g., the Rewards and Recognition programme in the Netherlands).
Facilitate opportunities for two–way dialogues: In addition to providing financial support for policy activities, research institutions and learned societies can also facilitate these initiatives and create spaces for individual researchers to engage with policymakers. For example, the European Geoscience Union (EGU) coordinates the EGU Science-Policy Pairing Scheme that provides researchers with the opportunity to work alongside a Member of the European Parliament for one week.
Inform grant applicants about policy engagement during the funding application process: Not every research topic lends itself to this, but researchers who consider policy engagement early on can meaningfully build it into applications and, later, into the funded project itself. Indeed, many funding bodies now require research projects to demonstrate societal impact witpolicy engagement constituting one potential impact dimension. Some research institutes and learned societies, especially those with Research Funding Officers, may be able to provide advice to researchers on available funding and how to integrate policy engagement into research projects and grant applications.
Cultivate internal recognition: Although providing science advice and integrating research into policy requires expertise, skills, and time, it often isn’t recognised or rewarded by research institutions. Research institutions and learned societies can internally communicate the importance of academic policy engagement via mission statements and institutional strategies. They can track policy engagement activities and provide recognition for achievements or awards in policy engagement, similar to achievements in research, teaching, or academic service. Research institutions can also host low-cost, virtual or in-person formats, such as lunch talks, where researchers share insights from their engagement in advisory bodies, policy events, or commissioned research.
Teaching load reductions: Reducing teaching obligations can give researchers limited additional time for policy engagement. Goethe University Frankfurt, for example, allows researchers serving on national or international policy advisory bodies a reduction of up to two teaching hours per week.
Include relevant training in professional development programmes: Navigating the science-policy interface requires distinct skills that researchers rarely acquire during their PhDs. Researchers often learn the skills required for engaging with policymakers on their own, and building this understanding can be time-consuming. By providing structured training and coaching, research institutions and learned societies can not only speed up the learning process, but also ensure best practice guidelines are taught. Alternatively, Institutions can integrate policy engagement modules directly into graduate academies or human resources development programmes.
Advocating for funding: While national governments and the EU stress the importance of science for policy, securing long-term funding for policy engagement continues to be a challenge. Research institutions and learned societies can advocate for their communities by outlining the importance of long-term funding for policy engagement togovernments, the EU, and funding organisations. Encouraging examples exist in Europe. For example, the Universities Policy Engagement Network in the UK has been awarded a grant of about £5.9 million by Research England, the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), and UK Research and Innovation, to improve UK universities’ policy engagement abilities.
Advocating for the reform of research assessment: Supporting research assessment reform is another way in which research institutions and learned socieites can advocate for their communities. A true systemic shift requires rewriting the rules of academic career progression, which have historically been dominated strictly by publication volume and grant acquisition. Through global coalitions like CoARA (Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment), research institutions are actively working to broaden evaluation metrics. While research institutions and learned societies can engage in both science advice and advocacy, both activities should be distinct and separate from one another to ensure that any scientific evidence provided is seen as independent and unbiased.

Sources and further reading

Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) (2022), The Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment, accessed on 13 August 2026.

European Geosciences Union (EGU) (2026), Policy Overview, accessed on 13 August 2026.

European Geosciences Union (EGU) (2026), Geo Policy, accessed on 13 August 2026.

Lambertucci, S. A., et al. (2025), Supporting Researchers’ Engagement in International Science–Policy Bodies. Nature Sustainability, 8, 1–3.

Recognition and Rewards Programme (2023), Room for everyone’s talent in practice. Road map. How we are shaping a new system of recognition and rewards, accessed on 13 August 2026.

von Schneidemesser, E., et al. (2020), Prepare Scientists to Engage in Science-Policy. Environmental Science & Technology, 54(23), 14787–14789.

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Built to Be Skimmed: Nine Ways to Make Long Policy Reports Work for Busy Policymakers

Written by Tome Sandevski. Posted in Content, Written Formats OV. No Comments on Built to Be Skimmed: Nine Ways to Make Long Policy Reports Work for Busy Policymakers

Key features in a nutshell

Long policy reports (50+ pp.) are usually read entirely through their summaries; include multitiered summaries (short summaries, long summaries, chapter summaries)
Structure your content for skimming and for AI summarisation tools, which many readers now rely on instead of reading the full document
Visuals, clear headings, and a dedicated website offering reusable slides and interactive features can turn a dense PDF into something people actually explore
Making a report reader-friendly takes extra time, but ithat’s a minor investment compared to the months or years spent producing the underlying research

How does the format work?

Long policy reports (anything roughly between 50 and 500 pages) provide deep, rigorous analyses of complex issues. Some are highly specific studies that individual researchers or research teams are commissioned to conduct for a small, specialised readership within a ministry. Others are flagship publications – annual reports from expert bodies, scientific organisations, or policy institutions – that attract major media attention and shape public debate, such as the IPCC Assessment Reports, the OECD’s PISA reports, or the World Happiness Report.

Authorship isn’t limited to researchers, either: practitioners, and former senior policymakers themselves are often part of the author team. Many of the best-known reports even end up informally named after the head of the expert group behind them, think of the Draghi Report or the Liikanen Report.

Challenges and how to address them:

The core problem is obvious: Who actually reads a 200-page policy report? Decision makers and civil servants operate under extreme time pressure. Expecting them to read a 100-page document cover-to-cover is unrealistic. Most policymakers will, at best, skim key sections, read summaries, or delegate the briefing process to staff. To ensure your research drives real policy impact, apply these 10 practical tips for reader-friendly report design:

Assume that policymakers and other readers will use generative AI to summarise the content and structure the publication accordingly. Highlight important sections by using key words like ‘key findings’ or ‘very important’.

Design for AI summarisation, not just human readers
Assume that policymakers and other readers will increasingly rely on generative AI tools to summarise your report before they read it themselves. Help the AI help you: use clear, descriptive semantic headings, include explicit ‘Key Findings’ callout boxes, and avoid embedding crucial data solely inside images or scanned graphics. Then test this yourself: run your report through a few different generative AI tools (e.g. ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini) and ask for a summary. How satisfied are you with the result? Did it pick up your key findings or miss them? It’s also worth asking the AI tools directly how they approach summarising long documents since that can reveal which structural cues (headings, callout boxes, bullet points) they actually rely on.
Summaries are everything.
Present your key findings in an executive summary of 1–2 pages. If the report runs over 100 pages, provide two: a short executive summary (1–4 pages) and a longer one (5–20 pages). This isn’t unusual, the Stern Review, for instance, published both a short and a full executive summary alongside its full 579-page report. Add chapter summaries of 1–2 pages for any chapter longer than 15 pages. Always assume the summaries are the only part that will actually be read – and invest finetuning them accordingly.
Use visuals – but only if they are essential
Use flowcharts, comparative tables, timelines, and infographics but ensure they add genuine analytical value rather than serving as decorative stock imagery. Brand each visual element with the report’s title/citation and allow visuals to be easily copied or downloaded from your website for use in briefings or presentations (example: OECD PISA 2022 key results infographics).
Make the text itself easy to navigate
Use clear, informative headings and subheadings, bold key terms and headings, and lean on bullet points and numbered lists rather than dense paragraphs.
Keep the main text lean
Keep the core narrative focused on findings and policy implications. Move methods, literature reviews, contributor lists, glossaries, references, and indexes into an annex.
Build a website around the report, not just a PDF
If your resources allow, don’t stop at uploading a long PDF – present the executive summary, chapter summaries, key figures, and press release as standalone sections on a dedicated website (for example, the IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report site). AI chatbots (such as the World Energy Outlook 2025) or other interactive elements like dashboards (e.g., World Happiness Report) can help readers explore the findings on their own terms. Explainer videos (for example, World Economic Outlook), podcast episodes (such as World Development Report), or even comics (e.g., German Advisory Council on Global Change) can work well for readers who’d rather watch or listen than read.
Provide reusable slide decks
Add a slide deck summarising your key messages and release it under a Creative Commons licence so policymakers can freely reuse it in their own presentations (e.g., the IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report site).
Bring in a professional designer if the budget allows
Well-formatted tables, thoughtful colour schemes, and professional layouts significantly increase readability.
Actively disseminate findings
Putting the report on your website isn’t enough. Write press releases, share the findings on social media, conduct one-to-one briefings, and organise a policy event to present them in person. Think about the dissemination from the outset, not just at the end. Include professional communicators or knowledge exchange staff in your team.

A final thought
Writing a lengthy policy report takes months, sometimes years. A few additional weeks spent making it genuinely reader-friendly and planning dissemination properly is a small price to pay for ensuring the key findings actually reach policymakers.

Tasks and resources: Brief description of the tasks and resources needed by scientists, knowledge exchange officers/research managers, and policymakers

Researchers

Conduct original research, synthesise existing knowledge, or both
Condense findings into multitiered summaries
Draft visual elements
Collaborate closely with support staff such as communications staff or graphic designers
Develop a dissemination strategy from the outset

Research managers and knowledge mobilisers (support staff)

Structure the report and design the layout, visual elements, and landing pages
Draft press releases and social media posts
Plan dissemination early on
Coordinate the author team

Policymakers

Provide funding for support structures such as secretariats, research staff, graphic designers, and communications officers
Provide feedback on how they actually read lengthy policy reports – researchers often don’t know this unless policymakers tell them

Sources and further reading

German Advisory Council on Global Change / WBGU (2014), The Great Transformation. Climate – Can We Beat the Heat? (comic), Berlin. Accessed 12 June 2026.

Helliwell, J. F., Layard, R., Sachs, J. D., De Neve, J.-E., Aknin, L. B., & Wang, S. (Eds.) (2026), World Happiness Report 2026. Accessed 12 June 2026.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2023), AR6 Synthesis Report. Accessed 8 June 2026.

International Energy Agency (2025), World Energy Outlook 2025. Accessed 8 June 2026.

International Monetary Fund (2026), World Economic Outlook. Accessed 12 June 2026.

OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Key Results (infographic). Accessed 12 June 2026.

Stern, N.; Cabinet Office – HM Treasury (2007), The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

World Bank Group (2025), World Development Report 2025: Standards for Development. Accessed 12 June 2026.

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Bringing Green Transition Research to Brussels

Written by Tome Sandevski. Posted in Content, Dialogue-Oriented Formats CS. No Comments on Bringing Green Transition Research to Brussels

Lessons from a Two-Day Event at the Representation of Hesse to the EU

Key features in a nutshell

A two-day event in Brussels combining an informal dinner, a workshop with European Commission policy officers, and two panel discussions – around 60 policymakers and practitioners registered, with approximately 40 attending on the main day, along with researchers from three universities
Built on an existing relationship with the Representation of the State of Hesse to the EU, which had already hosted several policy events for the organisers since 2018 – a head start well worth factoring in when planning a first Brussels event from scratch
A professional external moderator kept the two 45-minute panel discussions on time and on track, freeing the organisers from having to moderate their own event

How did the format work?

Step 1: Conceptualisation

The Policy Engagement Unit at Goethe University Frankfurt – which coordinates the Erasmus+ project ENGAGEgreen and the Mercator Science-Policy Fellowship Programme of the Rhine-Main Universities (TU Darmstadt, Goethe University Frankfurt, and Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz) – had organised various policy events at the Representation of the State of Hessen to the EU since 2018. In September 2023, the Policy Engagement Unit approached the Regional Representation of Hessen regarding a possible event on green transitions. The Representation of the State of Hessen to the EU advised on the topics of particular policy relevance in Brussels.

The Policy Engagement Unit at Goethe University Frankfurt and the Regional Representation of Hessen codesigned the two-day event, scheduling it for 11 and 12 March 2024.

Core aims of the event:

Provide an applied overview of cutting-edge research on technical innovations for green transitions and political and financial frameworks for the roll-out of key technologies
Connect researchers from Goethe-University Frankfurt, TU Darmstadt, and University of Vic directly with policymaking professionals from the European Commission, regional and national governments, as well as representatives from NGOs and business associations
Provide an overview of the need for expertise in the European Commission to enable our researchers to better identify engagement opportunities and possible engagement formats

Step 2: Planning & targeted outreach

The Regional Representation of Hesse maintains an excellent mailing list, built up through its own policy events. Researchers and research managers from the three participating universities also personally invited Brussels-based practitioners they already knew.

Panellists and Commission experts: The Policy Engagement Unit identified and invited representatives from various Directorates-General of the European Commission in late 2023 and early 2024, drawing on two complementary approaches: personal contacts built up over previous Brussels events, and a systematic review of the relevant Directorates-General’s organisation charts (see our article on key information sources for more on this technique)
Panel audience: The Regional Representation and the Policy Engagement Unit sent out official invitations in early February 2024.
Registration: By early February 2024, around 60 policymakers and other Brussels-based practitioners had registered.
Logistics: The Regional Representation’s dedicated events team organised catering and prepared the event room.
Moderation: With two 45-minute panel discussions on the agenda, the organisers decided early on to work with an experienced external moderator able to enforce time limits, rather than moderating themselves; the Policy Engagement Unit held a preparatory call with the moderator, Kai Bruns, and provided a briefing with panellist biographies and guiding questions
Panellist preparation: The Policy Engagement Unit at Goethe University Frankfurt briefed all panellists ahead of the event

Step 3: Implementation

The event opened with an informal dinner on 11 March 2024. This was a deliberately separate, smaller gathering — around 12 representatives from Frankfurt, Darmstadt, and Vic Universities, the European Commission, and various think tanks and NGOs, all practitioners the organisers already knew personally, rather than a subset of the 60 people registered for the main day.

The main programme followed on 12 March 2024, with approximately 40 people in attendance:

10:00–12:00: Workshop with policy officers from two Directorates-General of the European Commission, who discussed their needs for scientific expertise and the channels they use to source it; participating researchers gained direct insight into the day-to-day work of European Commission policy officers
12:00–12:30: Light lunch
12:30–12:45: Welcome address and introduction by Claus-Peter Appel (Deputy Head of the Representation of the State of Hesse to the EU) and Professor Michèle Knodt (Chair of Comparative Politics and European Integration, TU Darmstadt)
12:45–14:15: Panel discussions

Panel 1: Technical innovations for green transitions

Professor Christian Beidl, Chair of Internal Combustion Engines and Powertrain Systems, TU Darmstadt
Dr Bernd Biervert, Head of Unit ‘Planet, People and Science for Policy – Clean Planet, Clean Energy Transitions’, DG Research and Innovation, European Commission
Dr Mabel Mora Garrido, Leader of the Environmental Technologies research line, BETA Technological Centre, University of Vic – Central University of Catalonia
Professor Anna Possner, Chair of Atmospheric Physics and Climate, Goethe University Frankfurt

Panel 2: Political and financial frameworks for developing and deploying key technologies

Professor Tobias Berg, Chair of Banking, Goethe University Frankfurt
Beatrice Coda, Seconded Head of Unit to CINEA, CEF Energy and Renewable Energy Financing Mechanism, DG Energy, European Commission
Dr Cristian Kanovits, Team Leader, DG Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Professor Michèle Knodt, Chair of Comparative Politics and European Integration, Institute for Political Science, TU Darmstadt

Step 4: Post-event follow-up

Within a week of the event, the Policy Engagement Unit shared the contact details for participating researchers and policy professionals. Several researchers and policy professionals have since stayed in touch, exchanging updates on new research findings and EU-level policy developments.

Challenges and how to address them

Overall, the event ran very smoothly, but it’s worth explaining why, so that other universities can calibrate their own expectations. The Policy Engagement Unit at Goethe University Frankfurt had already been collaborating with researchers and research managers at Frankfurt, TU Darmstadt, and the University of Vic through the ENGAGEgreen project and the Mercator Science-Policy Fellowship Programme and had organised three previous policy events at the Regional Representation of Hesse to the EU. This meant established working relationships, shared routines, and mutual trust were already in place before planning even began: researchers could focus entirely on presenting their findings, while the Policy Engagement Unit and the Representation’s event managers handled the organisational side.

Universities without this kind of existing infrastructure should expect the first edition of a comparable event to require noticeably more coordination time, simply to build the working relationships this team could already draw on.

It’s also worth understanding what makes the Regional Representation of Hesse such an effective partner: it organises more than 100 policy events per year, has a dedicated events team and a well-maintained mailing list, and is well known among Brussels policymakers. Its location – within walking distance of the European Parliament and most Directorates-General of the European Commission – makes it a popular venue. The main practical constraint is availability: the Representation needs to be booked at least six months before the intended event date. This is a calendar constraint on securing the venue and date — it does not reflect how much actual work went into planning the event. For that, see the resource table below.

A tip for first-time organisers
If your institution is organising a policy event in Brussels for the first time, get in touch with your regional or national representation in Brussels and ask if they would be willing to host the event on their premises and support you with the organisation. Most German federal states and many regions and countries across Europe maintain such representation offices in Brussels – and they often have a genuine interest in hosting substantive events themselves since it also raises their own profile. Beyond a venue, it’s worth asking specifically what else they can offer: access to their existing mailing list (far more efficient than building one from scratch), an in-house events team, and catering – all of which can significantly reduce both your costs and your organisational workload, as this event shows.

Tasks and resources

Researchers

Prepared accessible policy pitches and answered questions concisely during the short panel discussions
Codeveloped the thematic scope and suggested relevant expert contacts

Research managers and knowledge mobilisers

Liaised with the Regional Representation of Hesse to the EU and approached potential panellists at the three universities and relevant Directorates-General
Handled mailing lists, invitation workflows, catering, and social media coverage

Policymakers

Took part in the informal dinner, the workshop, and the panel discussions
Answered questions from researchers and the audience during the panels
Established direct contacts with academic researchers for long-term knowledge exchange

A note on costs

Total expenditure – including catering, travel, and moderation – came to around €7,500. The Representation of the State of Hesse to the EU provided the event venue and beverages free of charge, which significantly reduced overall costs.

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Meeting Policymakers Where They Work

Written by Tome Sandevski. Posted in Content, Dialogue-Oriented Formats CS. No Comments on Meeting Policymakers Where They Work

How In-Person Meetings Drive Science-Policy Engagement. Lessons learned from the Rhine-Main Science Dialogue in Germany

Description

Key features in a nutshell

High reach: The Rhine-Main Science Dialogue enabled 81 researchers to conduct 166 face-to-face meetings with 177 policymaking professionals across 17 regional government institutions in Mainz and Wiesbaden, Germany
New connections: The format proved exceptionally effective at connecting civil servants and scientists who had no prior experience with science-policy engagement
Broad inclusivity: Engaged researchers across all disciplines – including STEM, social sciences, humanities, business, and economics – with staff across diverse regional ministries and public bodies

How does the format work?

The core concept is simple: researchers visit policymakers in their own offices and meeting rooms in regional institutions in the state capitals of Mainz and Wiesbaden.

Mainz is the capital of Rhineland-Palatinate (population approximately 4 million), with about 2,500 ministry officials
Wiesbaden is the capital of Hesse (population approximately 6.4 million), with over 3,000 public sector staff across various regional institutions

The step-by-step process:

Institutional buy-in: The Policy Engagement Office representing the three Rhine-Main Universities approaches regional ministries and public authorities to pitch the initiative.
Expert matchmaking: Participating institutions receive curated lists of interested researchers. These lists detail each scientist’s field of expertise, available dates, and links to their academic profiles.
Selection & confirmation: HR and departmental managers circulate the lists to their teams. Staff select the researchers they wish to meet via email or an online form, adding brief background notes on the specific policy topics currently on their agenda.
Agile scheduling: The Policy Engagement Office forwards meeting requests to the scientists who can accept or decline based on fit and schedule.
On-site conversations: Meetings take place on-site at the respective ministry or agency. Aside from providing meeting spaces, host institutions incur no financial costs.

Key results & impact

Track record at a glance:

81 scientists participating
166 face-to-face meetings conducted
177 policymakers and civil servants engaged
17 regional policymaking institutions involved

Post-engagement surveys conducted by the Policy Engagement Office at Goethe University Frankfurt revealed high satisfaction levels and strong demand for ongoing dialogue:

Breaking new ground: 60% of participating policymakers and 50% of researchers reported having little to no prior contact with each other before the scheme
Long-term engagement: Around 20% of participants agreed to stay in touch for future collaboration
Overwhelming approval: Over 95% of all participants expressed a desire to conduct similar face-to-face meetings in the future and actively recommended the format to their colleagues

Rollout & Practical Implementation

In November 2023, the Rhine-Main Universities gauged interest among regional institutions in Mainz and Wiesbaden. Demand was high in both capitals. However, due to government reshuffles following state elections in Hesse, the alliance decided to launch an initial pilot run in Mainz in March 2024, followed by another run in Mainz and Wiesbaden in September and October 2024.

Tasks and resources

Scientists

The Policy Engagement Office asks all participating researchers to read the FAQ list and review the websites of the policymaking institutions they will visit. Each meeting typically lasts one hour. Since Mainz and Wiesbaden are both close to the Rhine-Main Universities, travel time is minimal, and researchers are provided with public transport tickets – making the format both time- and cost-efficient for knowledge exchange.

Knowledge exchange managers and research managers

The Policy Engagement Office is responsible for informing policymaking institutions and researchers about the format and available dates via email and the FAQ list. It also prepares the online forms or spreadsheets used to collect areas of expertise, interests, and available time slots, and matches researchers with policymakers accordingly. Finally, it conducts a brief feedback survey among all participants after each round of meetings. Organising the format took around six weeks (full-time equivalent), plus roughly €900 for a joint lunch at the State Chancellery in Mainz – making it a highly efficient format overall.

Policymakers

Policymakers review the list of participating researchers and select whom they would like to meet. Meetings take place either in their own office or in a meeting room within their institution. Ahead of the meeting, policymakers are asked to look at the relevant researcher’s website and prepare questions they would like to discuss.

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Interview with Dr. Fabienne Pradella on policy sessions at the annual conferences of the German

Written by Tome Sandevski. Posted in Content, Dialogue-Oriented Formats CS. No Comments on Interview with Dr. Fabienne Pradella on policy sessions at the annual conferences of the German

Society for Epidemiology

Dr. Fabienne Pradella is a researcher at the University of Bremen. She was a postdoctoral researcher at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz and the Heidelberg Institute for Global Health. Her research lies at the intersection of epidemiology and economics and focuses on the prerequisites for a healthy life for all from pregnancy to old age. Her current projects focus on the effects of environmental influences during pregnancy on offspring health and on the prevention of neurodegenerative diseases in later life.

Dr Pradella, at which events have you organized policy sessions?

We held our sessions on the UN Sustainable Development Goals at the annual conferences of the German Society for Epidemiology, which take place every year with approximately 250–300 participants. The annual conferences are held in a different city each year, and we invited two to three local decision makers to discuss a specific topic with us.

How did the idea of inviting decision-makers to a scientific event come about? What topics did your session cover?

The idea arose in discussions with colleagues at previous annual conferences. A healthy life for all people of all ages is one of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Science and research, as also on the local level, are also considered highly important for achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals – so we found it exciting to bring Germany’s epidemiological community into contact with local decision makers at the annual conferences. Our idea was to combine scientific and practical perspectives. To this end, we selected topics that are highly relevant to research and practice, such as children’s health and access to healthy food.

Which policymakers did you invite? Did you already have contact with them beforehand

We contacted people with connections to the topic of our session at various levels. For example, the deputy mayor of Ulm was a guest, as were people involved in local initiatives, such as an employee of an association that promotes healthy daycare and school meals in the Greifswald region. We had not had any previous contact with these individuals, and over time, it became clear that contacting them by phone was the best way to explain our concerns. We also met with some of them for lunch in the run-up to the conference.

How did you structure your policy session?

The sessions usually began with keynote speeches lasting no more than 10 minutes, covering scientific and practical perspectives. Since the exchange between science and practice is a priority for us, we experimented with various interactive formats, such as thesis discussions and scientific “speed dating.” As organizers , we primarily moderated and facilitated transitions between core questions. It was also important to us to document the sessions. Our core organizing team consisted of three people, one of whom usually summarized the discussion on flipchart paper during the session so that all participants could see it.

Science and practice have different ways of thinking. Also, science and practice often use technical terms that aren’t known in the other “world.” How did communication between researchers and decision makers work in your sessions? Was it always clear to participants what was meant?

We certainly learned a lot in this regard. It helped to make the topic of the sessions as concrete as possible. To cover the thematic expertise from a scientific perspective as well, we involved the working groups of the professional association—after all, we also organized sessions on topics that we ourselves do not research. This gave rise to exciting ideas that also facilitated communication. For example, we worked with the Health Geography working group to develop a street map in Greifswald to discuss access to healthy and sustainable nutrition using a concrete example.

Did the exchange with decision makers give you any ideas for your own research?

Yes, definitely. As I mentioned earlier, I learned a lot about how to present my research in a way tailored to the target audience. Discussing knowledge gaps and practice-relevant topics in our sessions also gave rise to research ideas – though not necessarily for my own research, as I have no expertise in daycare or school catering, for example. Instead, I learned a lot of new things and gained insights into other fields of research. In terms of motivation, the sessions also made me even more aware of the relevance of my research.

Was planning and conducting the policy sessions more time-consuming than conducting a regular scientific session?

I would say the organization was at least different, with much more communication and coordination in advance. Finding relevant decision makers was not always easy, and it sometimes took a while to reach the right person. Personally, however, I found this a welcome change, especially during my doctoral studies. A big advantage was that we didn’t need any financial resources, since the sessions took place as part of a larger event and there were no travel costs, thanks to the involvement of local decision makers.

What tips would you give to researchers who are considering organizing policy sessions as part of scientific conferences?

For our sessions, it was important that we formed an organizational team made up of people at different stages of their careers, with different skills and backgrounds. We also discussed our plans in advance with the professional association’s board. The dynamics and interests of participants at scientific conferences certainly vary by discipline. At the time, we decided to simply try out our idea—with the attitude that we would also learn something even if no one came. Ultimately, it turned out that there was interest, in our case, especially among young researchers.

Tome Sandevski conducted this interview.

Right Time, Right Format, Right Target Group: Designing Policy Events that Work for Policymakers

Written by Tome Sandevski. Posted in Content, Dialogue-Oriented Formats OV. No Comments on Right Time, Right Format, Right Target Group: Designing Policy Events that Work for Policymakers

Key features in a nutshell

There’s no single ‘right’ length or format for a policy event. The right choice depends on your goal, your resources, your target group, and how well policymakers already know you
Senior decision makers and junior policy staff behave very differently as event guests; plan accordingly
Time of day matters as much as duration: breakfast, lunch, and evening events each come with different trade-offs for policymakers’ schedules
Beyond the clock, check the parliamentary calendar too; sitting weeks and recesses can make or break attendance
Virtual and in-person formats aren’t just a logistics choice; they change what kind of event actually works

How does the format work?

From informal one-hour meetings in small groups to large, multi-day conferences and policy events can take many shapes and formats. When planning policy events, researchers and research managers often ask fundamental questions:

Target audience: Whom should we invite – junior or mid-level policy professionals, or senior decision makers?
Duration & balance: How long should an event be? How do we balance the need to convey academic expertise thoroughly with the necessity of allowing time for networking while respecting the tight schedules of policymakers?
Format selection: Which event format works best for which target group?
Delivery mode: Should we organise virtual, hybrid, or in-person events?

To identify the right event structure, start by answering four guiding questions:

Objectives: What do you want to achieve? (e.g., direct policy change, raising visibility, building trust, expanding networks, mutual learning, gaining research insights, or informing policymakers)?
Resources: What time, budget, and administrative support are available?
Familiarity: Do policymakers already know you, your institution, or your research project?
Format Expertise: Are you familiar with interactive formats (e.g., World Cafés, breakout sessions, panel discussions)? Can you organise them on your own or do you need support (e.g., moderators)?

Who do you invite? Understanding policy target groups

Different groups within policymaking institutions have distinct motivations, knowledge levels, and availability. Effective event design requires tailoring the depth of discussion to the right audience:

Members of Parliament, heads of institutions & senior policymakers

Working reality: Extremely packed schedules and high political visibility; they frequently have to leave events immediately after delivering their opening remarks
Motivations for attending: Access to high-level evidence, strategic networking, and public/social media visibility (e.g., demonstrating active engagement on a panel with scientists and industry and NGO leaders)
Typical roles: Delivering welcome addresses or keynotes, serving as high-profile panellists
Level of knowledge & scope: Broad thematic overview; they are the right contacts for discussing fundamental policy questions:
- How can we accelerate the market adoption of energy-efficient technologies?
- Should smartphones be banned in primary schools?
- Should hard drugs be legalised?

Staffers, parliamentary advisers, junior & mid-level policy professionals

Working reality: Demanding schedules, but far more likely to attend multi-hour workshops or roundtables than senior politicians
Motivations for attending: Gathering solid technical evidence, acquiring background information to brief their superiors, and building subject-matter networks
Typical roles: Panellists, presenters, active participants in breakout sessions, World Cafés, or technical workshops
Level of knowledge & scope: Specialist or deep technical expertise (civil servants) or strong generalist knowledge (parliamentary staffers); they are the right contacts for discussing technical and regulatory implementation details:
- Which technical purity standards must existing pipelines meet to transport hydrogen safely?
- How can water toxicity thresholds be standardised across municipal monitoring systems?

Delivery ode: Virtual, in-person, or hybrid?

Selecting the right delivery mode directly impacts attendance and engagement depth:

Virtual events (45–120 minutes): Ideal for rapid briefings or busy policy professionals spread across different regions; they significantly lower the threshold for attendance and incur no costs for venue rental or catering but only offer limited opportunities for informal networking; virtual events lasting longer than two to three hours should generally be avoided because digital screen fatigue sets in quickly and participant engagement drops sharply
In-person events: Essential for building personal trust, exchanging implicit policy knowledge, and long-term networking; but they require higher costs and a greater time commitment from participants
Hybrid events: Offer broad reach but require substantial technical support and active moderation to prevent virtual attendees from feeling like passive observers

Matching event duration with objectives

Short events (60–90 Minutes)

Focus: Presenting concise new evidence, exchanging initial viewpoints, or pitching key findings
Typical formats: Short presentations, roundtables, or panel discussions followed by Q&A
Networking: Very limited informal networking during the session itself
Active roles: 1–5 active speakers/presenters
Catering costs: Minimal (coffee, water, light refreshments)
Organisational effort (FTE): Hours to days

Medium-length events (2–5 Hours)

Focus: Deepening thematic exchange and fostering connections between researchers and policymakers
Typical formats: A sequence of short presentations, thematic roundtables, interactive workshops, or panel discussions
Networking: Good opportunities during coffee breaks, joint lunches, or evening receptions, or small-group breakout sessions.
Active roles: 4–10 active speakers/presenters.
Catering costs: Moderate to high (coffee breaks and light meals, e.g., finger food or buffet lunch).
Organisational effort (FTE): Days to weeks

Full-day events (5+ Hours)

Focus: Comprehensive thematic exploration and establishing long-term networks
Typical formats: Several speeches and presentations, parallel breakout sessions, interactive World Cafés, or panel discussions
Networking: Excellent networking during structured breaks, communal meals, and evening receptions
Active roles: 10+ active speakers/presenters.
Catering costs: High (full catering including morning/afternoon coffee, lunch, and potentially a reception)
Organisational effort (FTE): Weeks to months

For what time of day should you organise the event?

Timing & duration: Depending on the country, breakfast events typically start between 7:00 and 9:00 and run for 60–90 minutes
Format & catering: Attendees enjoy a light breakfast while listening to concise presentations; high-quality moderation and strict timekeeping are essential
Pros & Cons:
Advantage: Particularly popular with Members of Parliament (MPs) whose core legislative schedule often begins later in the morning; high attendance rates because political emergencies rarely erupt early in the morning; participants start their working day with fresh insights
Disadvantage: Limited time for informal networking

Lunch events

Timing & duration: Depending on the country, they start between 11:00 and 13:00 and run for 90–120 minutes
Format & catering: Combines short inputs with structured discussion over a light lunch or standing buffet
Pros & cons:
- Advantage: Provides a productive break in the workday with sufficient time for Q&A and networking;
- Disadvantage: Interrupts the daily workflow; unforeseen political priorities or urgent meetings during the morning can lead to last-minute cancellations

Evening events

Timing & duration: Depending on the country, they start between 17:30 and 20:00 and run for 2–4 hours
Format & catering: Keynotes, presentations or panel discussions followed by an extended networking reception with food and drinks
Pros & cons:
- Advantage: Offers the best atmosphere for building personal trust and long-term relationships
- Disadvantage: Competing demands that piled up earlier in the day, simple tiredness, or family obligations can all keep policymakers from attending

Tasks and resources

Researchers

Clarify what they want to achieve with the event and communicate this early to the organising team
Prepare content appropriate to the chosen format, duration, and target group (e.g., a tight elevator-pitch style talk for a breakfast event with senior policymakers vs a fuller technical presentation for a full-day workshop with policy officers)
Be available for informal networking during breaks wherever the format allows for it

Research managers and knowledge mobilisers

Help match the event’s goal, target audience, and available resources to the right format and duration, using the framework above
Handle logistics: venue, catering, invitations, and – especially for short events – a realistic buffer for no-shows or late arrivals
Check the parliamentary calendar (sitting weeks, recesses, election periods) before fixing a date

Policymakers

Decide whether to attend and in what capacity (e.g., keynote speaker, panellist, or audience member)
Where their own schedule doesn’t allow attendance, suggest a staffer or colleague who could attend instead
Share relevant current priorities or policy questions in advance so that the event can be tailored to what’s actually useful to them
Indicate format preferences when invited – for example, whether a breakfast slot or a longer in-person session fits better into their schedule
Flag known scheduling conflicts early (e.g., sitting weeks, election periods, other competing commitments) to help organisers pick a workable date
Give brief feedback afterwards on whether the format, length, and timing actually worked well for them

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Policy Change Isn’t the Only Goal: A Guide to What Policy Engagement Can Achieve

Written by Tome Sandevski. Posted in Content, Introduction. No Comments on Policy Change Isn’t the Only Goal: A Guide to What Policy Engagement Can Achieve

Key features in a nutshell

Avoid the ‘impact trap’: Direct policy change is rare, multicausal, and slow. Treat it as a potential long-term outcome rather than the sole benchmark of success
Value the stepping stones: Building visibility, trust, and personal networks are vital standalone goals that create the foundation for future policy interactions
Engagement is a two-way street: Understanding policymaking (better) is an important yet often overlooked, goal of policy engagement; policy engagement can enrich academic research by granting access to field data, revealing fresh research questions and testing the real-world relevance of hypotheses
Embrace open-ended dialogues: Informing policymakers early – even with preliminary or non-definitive findings – helps frame emerging issues long before crises or legislation occur

Why do the goals matter?

Before diving into formats, actors, and institutions, crosscutting institutions, and teaching and learning methods, every policy engagement journey must start with a fundamental question: What are we actually trying to achieve?

In line with the University of Oxford’s widely used definition, we view policy engagement as an umbrella term describing ‘the many ways researchers and policymakers connect and explore common interests at various stages in their respective research and policymaking processes.’

To properly plan, resource, and evaluate these connections, both researchers and knowledge mobilisers must clarify their specific goals upfront. In practice, misaligned or unrealistic expectations are the single biggest driver of frustration in science-policy interactions.

The spectrum of policy engagement goals

Rather than viewing engagement through an ‘all-or-nothing’ lens, it helps if we understand goals as a spectrum ranging from foundational network-building to direct policy influence:

Direct policy change: Highly ambitious and rarely immediate

Seeing policymakers take up your recommendations is the goal most researchers think of first – and also the hardest to achieve for two reasons. First, policy change is rarely attributable to a single science-policy initiative: researchers, NGOs, and the media often all contribute to a shift over time, making any one contribution hard to isolate. Second, policy change doesn’t happen in a vacuumbut depends on several preconditions, which are themselves worth treating as goals in their own right (see below). Researchers and knowledge mobilisers should avoid treating policy change as the only legitimate goal of engagement; doing so is a recipe for frustration.

Raising visibility, building trust, and expanding networks

If you look at the researchers who regularly sit on advisory boards, conduct commissioned research, or testify at parliamentary hearings, you will notice the same names appearing repeatedly. Why? Beyond their academic achievements, their involvement relies heavily on (institutional) visibility, long-standing trust, and established personal networks. Raising your profile and building mutual trust are critical standalone goals that require time and continuity. Acknowledging this prevents frustration when launching new policy brief series or hosting inaugural policy events.

Mutual learning, understanding policymaking and gaining ideas for your own research: Understanding how policymaking works helps researchers explain the relevance of their findings, draft realistic policy recommendations or options, and identify the right audience – Members of Parliament, policy officers in ministries – along with the right channels and windows of opportunity. No researcher becomes a policy expert overnight, and that’s perfectly fine. While formal documents like government strategies, party platforms, and policy analyses from think tanks, NGOs, and associations are publicly available, the implicit, unwritten knowledge of how things actually work can only be picked up by talking to policymakers directly. Enabling open conversation with policymakers, purely to learn how policymaking works, is therefore an important goal in its own right. Policy engagement can also benefit your own research directly. Talking to policymakers can surface new perspectives that lead to new research questions or hypotheses and can open doors to data, interview partners, or institutions willing to disseminate a survey on your behalf.

Open-ended informing of policymakers
Research findings don’t always translate into policy change. They might contradict the government’s current priorities, or a fast-moving policy situation might outpace findings that aren’t yet fully robust – think of the COVID-19 pandemic as an example. Researchers may also arrive at important findings while remaining genuinely unsure what policy recommendation follows. Should researchers hold back from engaging with policymakers in cases like these? Certainly not. It takes policymakers time to build up an understanding of a salient issue, and the sooner they have access to scientific expertise – caveats and all – the better.

Sources and further reading

University of Oxford (2024), Policy Engagement. Accessed on 10 April 2024.

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Setting the Stage: Key Concepts and Actors in Policy Engagement

Written by Tome Sandevski. Posted in Content, Introduction. No Comments on Setting the Stage: Key Concepts and Actors in Policy Engagement

Policy engagement

In line with the University of Oxford’s widely used definition, we view policy engagement as an umbrella term describing ‘the many ways researchers and policymakers connect and explore common interests at various stages in their respective research and policymaking processes.’

We regard policy engagement as a more comprehensive and two-way (bidirectional) approach than traditional science advice. It encompasses diverse outcomes – such as informing policy change, building networks, mutual learning, or codesigning research agendas – and can take place through both formal and informal channels.

Policymakers

We define policymakers broadly as individuals involved in analysing, assessing, planning, drafting, and implementing policies. Not all policymakers are direct decision makers (such as politicians or heads of institutions).

Our broad definition covers:

Elected politicians (e.g., Members of Parliament, ministers)
Political staff and advisers
Staffers in political parties
Civil servants and officials in local, regional, national, or EU institutions and international organisations

This definition spans all branches of government and administrative levels.

Academic researchers

We define academic researchers as individuals affiliated with academic institutions, such as universities or independent research institutes, who conduct fundamental or applied research.

Unlike researchers in think tanks or consultancies, conducting policy analysis and engaging with policymakers is usually not the primary ‘bread and butter’ business of academic scholars. For most academics, policy engagement is an additional activity undertaken alongside core responsibilities such as conducting research, teaching, managing projects, peer reviewing, and serving in learned societies.

To account for different career stages and capacities, we apply the European Framework for Research Careers (R1–R4):

R1 – First-stage researchers: Doctoral candidates or researchers conducting research under supervision
R2 – Recognised researchers: Postdoctoral researchers or scholars holding a PhD (or equivalent competence) who are developing academic independence
R3 – Established researchers: Independent researchers who formulate their own research agendas, secure third-party funding, and lead research groups
R4 – Leading researchers: Senior scholars who are recognised as pioneers and leaders in their research field by their peers

Research managers

Research managers are professional, non-research staff within academic institutions who support scholars throughout the research lifecycle. Their expertise spans grant application support, project management, communications, impact assessment, or institutional strategy development.

In the realm of policy engagement, this group includes knowledge mobilisers and brokers (who build bridges between researchers and external policymakers), grant officers (who help integrate policy engagement plans into funding proposals), and strategy officers (who embed science-policy interaction into university strategies).

Sources and further reading

Breckon, Jonathan, Sarah Chaytor, Stephen Clarke, Helen Durrant, and Olivia Stevenson (2025), Hidden Talents: Core Competencies of Knowledge Mobilisers Working in Public Policy. London: Capabilities in Academic Policy Engagement (CAPE).

Council of the European Union (2023), Council Recommendation on a European Framework to Attract and Retain Research, Innovation and Entrepreneurial Talents in Europe. Brussels: Council of the European Union. Retrieved April 10, 2025.

Hepworth, B. (2025), P is for Policymakers. Transforming Evidence Blog. Retrieved April 10, 2025.

Reed, Mark S. (2024), The Researcher’s Guide to Influencing Policy. London and New York: Routledge.

Stevenson, Olivia (2019), Translating Research into Policy – Who Are ‘The Policymakers’? UCL Policy Lab Blog. Retrieved May 5, 2024.

University of Oxford (2024), Policy Engagement: What is Policy Engagement? University of Oxford Policy Engagement Network. Retrieved April 10, 2024.