Author: Tome Sandevski

Pooling Resources, Leveraging Policy Impact

Written by Tome Sandevski. Posted in Content, Cross-Cutting Issues OV. 5 Comments on Pooling Resources, Leveraging Policy Impact

How Universities Can Collaborate with Think Tanks, NGOs, and Foundations

Summary: Key features in a nutshell

Researchers at universities can benefit from collaboration with think tanks, NGOs, or foundations by jointly organizing policy events, co-publishing policy-relevant research findings, pursuing staff exchange placements, or pooling resources in terms of expertise, funding, and support capacity.
While scientists at universities contribute evidence through original research or a thorough synthesis of academic literature, policy experts at think tanks, NGOs, and foundations can translate academic findings into policy-relevant formats and identify appropriate target audiences and windows of opportunity.
Think tanks, NGOs, and foundations are diverse entities. Think tanks range from advocacy-oriented institutes to academic research centers and contract research organizations. NGOs encompass advocacy organizations, service delivery bodies, professional associations, and business associations. Foundations provide grants to NGOs or research institutions and may also publish policy analyses or organize policy events.
Collaboration works best when joint goals are clearly defined, reputational risks are assessed in advance, and practical arrangements—such as cost-sharing and publication rights—are agreed upon before collaboration begins.
Collaboration with think tanks, NGOs, and foundations is an effective way to achieve impact as required by funding organizations.

Why collaborate? Challenges scientists face when engaging with policymakers

Research at universities is structured around projects that produce original research and thorough syntheses of academic literature. Scientists publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals but often face three recurring challenges when seeking to engage with policymakers:

Challenge 1: Communicating research findings effectively. Researchers tend to use scientific jargon and are often unfamiliar with the language and conventions of policy. Formats such as policy briefs or policy events differ substantially from academic publications or academic conferences.

Challenge 2: Identifying windows of opportunity. Knowing when to communicate findings requires regularly following policy debates, a time-consuming task. Scientists typically lack access to the tacit knowledge embedded in policymaking institutions.

Challenge 3: Reaching the right policymakers. Mapping relevant target groups by browsing parliamentary committees and organizational charts of ministries, European Commission directorates-general, or political parties is a demanding and time-intensive task.

By collaborating with think tanks, NGOs, and foundations, scientists can save time and resources while amplifying their policy impact. These organizations interact with policymakers regularly and enjoy a degree of visibility that most scientists or academic institutions struggle to achieve independently. Policy experts at think tanks, NGOs, and foundations closely monitor policy debates, know whom to approach, and are familiar with the language and framings that resonate in policy contexts. Rather than investing time and resources in publications or events that go unnoticed by policymakers, scientists can conduct research, publish findings, and organize policy events in collaboration with these organizations.

Challenge 4: Scarcity of resources. Activities such as organizing policy events (especially in capitals), engagement, dissemination, networking, or fundraising can be very expensive and time-consuming. Sharing costs, staff time, or infrastructure for specific activities, such as events or publications, can drastically reduce the total cost per partner.

What forms can collaboration take?

Collaboration between universities and think tanks, NGOs, and foundations can take several forms, ranging from low-commitment to high-commitment arrangements:

Joint publications: Coauthoring policy briefs, reports, blog posts, or factsheets; the university contributes evidence; the partner organization contributes policy framing and dissemination reach
Joint events: Co-organizing panel discussions, background briefings, parliamentary breakfasts, and workshops; the university contributes scientific credibility; the partner organization contributes its network and access to policymakers
Staff exchanges and secondments: Researchers spend time at a think tank, NGO, or foundation to gain firsthand experience of the policy process; this is particularly valuable for early-career researchers
Research collaboration: Jointly designing and conducting research projects, with the partner organization contributing policy-relevant research questions and access to policymaking stakeholders
Shared knowledge and data platforms: Jointly maintained databases, evidence repositories, and policy tracking tools that reduce repeated data collection and allow all partners to draw from a common evidence base
Long-term strategic alliances or frameworks: Instead of project-by-project collaboration, partners establish umbrella agreements that allow repeated cooperation (events, outputs, funding bids) without renegotiating administrative details each time. For instance, these agreements could foresee:
- Shared project management offices (PMOs): Partners establish a joint coordination unit responsible for timeline management, deliverables tracking, reporting, and risk monitoring across multiple joint activities; this reduces duplication of project coordination roles in each organization
- Shared administrative services (“back-office pooling”): Organizations pool functions such as finance, procurement, contracting, HR administration, or compliance management for joint projects; this reduces overhead costs and avoids parallel administrative workflows.
- Joint communications and dissemination units: A shared comms function handles policy briefs, press outreach, newsletters, and social media for joint work, ensuring consistent messaging while reducing duplicated communication staff effort
- Coordinated event logistics teams: Rather than each organization separately managing venues, catering, invitations, and registrations, a shared operational team (or rotating lead) manages all event logistics across partners.

Collaborations can be temporary (e.g. a single joint event) or long-term (e.g., series of events or publications, joint projects, or a strategic alliance).

How to find suitable partners: A starting point

Researchers and research managers can identify potential partners via the following routes:

Websites like EU Agenda, Euractiv, and International Geneva list policy events and policy publications by various actors; similar websites exist at the national level but only in some European countries (e.g., Smart Thinking in the UK or Political in Germany); attending policy events in your field is one of the most effective ways to identify and informally assess potential partners
Directories like the Open Think Tank Directory, NGO base, Philanthropy Europe Association, or the EU Transparency Register list numerous organizations that might offer collaboration opportunities; similar websites might also exist on the national level

Assessing a potential partner: Key questions

Before approaching a potential partner, researchers and research managers should work through the following questions:

On quality and reputation

Participants and partners: What types of events does it organize? Have policymakers attended its events? Can it count on a valuable network of partners?
Independence and governance: Does the organization have a clear political orientation or affiliation? Is it funded by industry, political parties, or business associations?
Quality: does the organization have valuable Quality Assessment tools and procedures in place? What kinds of publications does the organization produce (policy briefs, reports, blog posts, factsheets)? Are the content and quality convincing?

On fit and feasibility

Does the organization work on policy issues in your area of expertise?
Does it publish joint publications or welcome guest contributions? Does it co-organize events with external partners?
Is the organization active and visible? Is it posting regularly on social media, with content that is shared and engaged with?
Do both organizations define “policy impact” in the same way (e.g., legislative change, public debate, implementation)?
Is there alignment on policy positions, or at least on the degree of advocacy vs neutrality expected?
Does the organization typically work at the same governance level (EU, national, local), or would coordination be cross-scale and complex?
Are timelines compatible (academic research cycles vs. policy cycles vs. funding cycles)?
Is there flexibility to adapt outputs mid-project if policy developments change direction?
Does the organization have experience working with academic partners, or will there be a steep learning curve?

On practical arrangements:

Does the collaboration involve cost-sharing? What costs need to be covered, and what is your budget?
Who decides on the structure, layout, and publication dates of joint outputs? Who controls the guest list for events?
Does a cooperation agreement need to be signed? Is there an official policy on logo use and institutional attribution?
What happens in the case of disagreement over framing, conclusions, or recommendations?
Who owns jointly produced outputs, and under what license can they be reused?
How are indirect costs (overheads, admin time, institutional costs) covered?
Are budget reallocations possible if project needs change?
Are there conflict-of-interest disclosures required by any partner or funder?
What safeguards exist to ensure independence of analysis and findings?
Who has the final say on public messaging and media communication?
Under what conditions can a partner withdraw from the collaboration?

Warning signs: When to be cautious

Not all potential partners are equally suitable. Researchers should exercise caution when

An organization’s funding sources are opaque or dominated by industry interests whose positions conflict with independent scientific evidence
An organization is closely affiliated with a political party or ideological movement in ways that could compromise the perceived neutrality of the research
An organization expects researchers to endorse predetermined policy positions rather than contributing independent evidence
An organization has a weak or inconsistent publication or visibility record, suggesting limited reach or impact
The collaboration agreement gives the partner organization sole control over the framing, editing, or publication of joint outputs

Process overview: From first idea to active collaboration

The following sequence describes a typical pathway from initial interest to active collaboration. It is intended as a flexible guide, not a rigid protocol.

Step 1: Define your goal. Clarify what you want to achieve: impact in terms of policy change, increased visibility among policymakers, joint research, or access to a partner’s network and events.
Step 2: Map the landscape. Identify think tanks, NGOs, or foundations active in your policy area using the routes described above.
Step 3: Assess potential partners. Work through the guiding questions above. Prioritize organizations whose publication quality, political independence, and working style align with your own.
Step 4: Make initial contact. Reach out informally by attending an event, responding to a publication, or requesting a brief introductory meeting. Collaboration is more likely to succeed if it grows out of a genuine shared interest rather than a cold institutional approach.
Step 5: Agree on the collaboration format. Decide together on the type of collaboration (joint publication, event, research project), the division of tasks, cost-sharing arrangements, and any formal agreements required.
Step 6: Implement and evaluate. Carry out the collaboration, document lessons learned, and assess whether the collaboration achieved its intended goals. Successful collaborations often become the foundation for longer-term partnerships.

Roles and responsibilities in collaboration

The following overview describes the typical tasks and contributions of each stakeholder group in a university-think tank, university-NGO, or university-foundation collaboration.

Scientific lead role (universities)
Policy translation and engagement role (think tanks / NGOs / foundations)
Coordination and operational management role (research managers / PMOs / secretariats)
Stakeholder interface role (joint responsibility but often led by external partners)
Governance and decision-making role (shared or assigned structures)
Funding and compliance responsibility (often hybrid but needs clarity)

Universities / research centers / academies

Universities primarily take responsibility for scientific leadership and the integrity of the evidence base. Scientists contribute the core evidence base, original research findings, or syntheses of academic literature. A key adaptation required of scientists is to shift from academic to policy-oriented communication: while academic publications foreground methodology and theoretical debate, policy-oriented outputs emphasize practical applicability and concrete recommendations. Scientists also need to adapt their timing: whereas research projects unfold over months or years, think tanks, NGOs, and foundations typically time their outputs to align with current policy debates and legislative calendars. Scientists benefit most from collaboration when they are willing to invest time in understanding their partner organization’s working culture and communication conventions.

Knowledge exchange officers / research managers

Research managers play a central coordinating role. They can map potential partners by assessing the quality, reach, and policy impact of their publications and events. They carry responsibility for operational delivery. They ensure that timelines, reporting requirements, and administrative processes are met, and they coordinate communication across institutions. They also manage budgets, contractual arrangements, and compliance obligations, providing continuity across partners and reducing administrative duplication. They handle legal and organizational matters like cooperation agreements, logo placement, cost-sharing arrangements, and institutional approval processes. They also serve as a bridge between the scientific team and the partner organization, helping to manage expectations and to ensure that timelines and deliverables are realistic for both sides.

Think tanks/ NGOs / foundations

Think tanks, NGOs, and foundations typically assume responsibility for policy translation and external engagement. They shape academic findings into formats that are usable in decision-making contexts, ensure that outputs are aligned with policy debates and timing, and lead or colead stakeholder outreach and dissemination. They also contribute policy intelligence by identifying relevant audiences and opportunities for engagement, helping to ensure that research is not only accurate but also strategically positioned to have impact.

Policymakers and other external stakeholders

Policymakers and their staff benefit from collaborations that produce timely, accessible, and actionable evidence. They are not operational partners in the collaboration but serve as the primary end users of the outputs. Their role is to define policy needs, provide feedback on relevance, and engage with evidence through consultations or policy processes. They are most likely to engage when outputs are framed around their specific decision-making needs and timed to coincide with relevant legislative or budgetary processes.

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

Pairing Schemes of the Rhine-Main Universities: The Policy Fellowship Programmes

Written by Tome Sandevski. Posted in Content, Dialogue-Oriented Formats CS. No Comments on Pairing Schemes of the Rhine-Main Universities: The Policy Fellowship Programmes

Key features in a nutshell

The Policy Fellowship Programmes of the Rhine-Main-Universities Darmstadt, Frankfurt, and Mainz allow policymaking professionals from regional and federal ministries, the European Commission and international organisations, NGOs, as well as journalists to visit the Rhine-Main-Universities to conduct meetings with scientists.
The initiatives aim at providing practitioners with scientific expertise on the policy issues they are dealing with while the researchers learn about policy perspectives on their research topics.
Record: 210 policymaking professionals have conducted about 2,800 meetings with about 730 scientists since 2016.

How does the format work?

The Rhine-Main Universities – an alliance of Technical University Darmstadt, Goethe University Frankfurt, and Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz – promote dialogue between scientists from various disciplines and policymakers via face-to-face meetings. The Rhine-Main Universities have established three dialogue programmes: The Mercator Science-Policy Fellowship Programme, the Science Meets Regions Fellowship, and the ENGAGE Policy Fellowship.

These programmes follow a very similar structure: The Rhine-Main Universities circulate calls for applications to hundreds of policymaking institutions, civil society organisations and media in Germany and abroad.

When applying to our programmes, policymaking professionals must elaborate on their need for academic expertise in motivation letters. Also, they have to provide a list of questions they would like to discuss with our scientists. Once accepted into the programmes, each policymaking professional receives a comprehensive list of researchers with whom they can meet. The policymaking professionals provide feedback on the list. The policy engagement unit at Frankfurt University schedules the meetings between the scientists and the policymaking professionals.

Each fellowship cohort conducts joint visits to the Frankfurt/Rhine-Main area twice during their fellowship, and each policymaker has meetings with approximately eight researchers during each visit. If the policy fellow needs scientific expertise in the future, they will have a network of 16 researchers they have already met and whom they can approach. Likewise, the participating researchers can approach their counterparts in policymaking institutions if they want to disseminate their knowledge. Our evaluations show that the participating policymakers and scientists are very content with the programmes. Both appreciate the office’s time efficiency and organisational support for policy engagement.

These face-to-face meetings have resulted in numerous follow-up activities such as joint events, talks by researchers at the institutions of policy professionals, and joint research projects.

Our fellowship programme brings professionals and scientists together in hundreds of meetings they would otherwise never meet. Our evaluation surveys show that about half of the researchers had no or only occasional contact with policymakers before participating in our programmes. The same observation applies to the participating policymaking professionals.

Thus, our dialogue initiatives prove that there is excellent potential for programmes bringing policymaking professionals and researchers together.

Challenges (and how to address them)

A very practical challenge is scheduling meetings with our scientists, who are often not at the universities daily. Thus, we must start planning the meetings three months in advance.

Another challenge is for the scientists to understand that the policy fellows are diverse. Some policy fellows have extensive knowledge of the topics they would like to discuss; they ask questions, such as “How does the use of smartphones affect the reading skills of children in primary schools?” Others are interested in rather big “big questions” in their policy fields (e.g., “How stable are financial markets?”), while some policy fellows use the time to gain an overview of unfamiliar topics (e.g. “What are algorithms?”).

Likewise, policymakers might talk with scientists who understand policymaking well while others speak to policymakers for the first time. We have prepared FAQ lists for policymakers and scientists and informed policymakers about the programme through bilateral phone calls or Zoom calls and an induction event.

Tasks and resources

Scientists

The programmes are very time-efficient for scientists. Since the meetings are informal, they do not have to invest much time in preparing them other than reading the topics of interest of the policy fellows.

Knowledge exchange managers and research managers (Support staff)

The Rhine-Main-Universities created two new positions to coordinate their policy-dialogue projects. Our tasks include managing the application process, identifying possible experts for policymakers, assisting policymakers and scientists with organisational issues, scheduling 350 meetings per year, and other tasks. The programme is very resource intensive regarding support staff because we tailor some 16 meetings to the needs of the policy fellow.

Policymakers

The policymakers must submit an application, which takes them a couple of hours to prepare. We recommend that they spare 30 minutes of preparation time for each of the 16 scheduled meetings with our scientists. They have to conduct the meetings with our scientists. We also ask our policy fellows to participate in preparatory sessions, a feedback call, and two rounds of evaluations.

Required funding

We spend about 80% of our budget on financing two full-time positions. We have a modest budget for joint events, public relations, and travel. Stiftung Mercator provides about 60 per cent of our funds, while the EU and the three Rhine-Main-Universities contribute 20 per cent each.

Our policy fellows must cover the costs of travel to the Frankfurt/Rhine-Main area, accommodation, and dinners. We do not charge the policy fellows; other institutions, like the Centre for Science and Policy at Cambridge University or ETH Zürich, do so for their policy dialogue projects.

Sources and further reading

Tome Sandevski. How the Rine-Main Universities promote knowledge exchange between researchers and policymakers via face-to-face meetings. Knowledge of policy blog. 15 August 2023. https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/blog/how-rhine-main-universities-promote-knowledge-exchange-between-researchers-policymakers-face-0_en

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

Commissioned Research Reports

Written by Tome Sandevski. Posted in Content, Written Formats OV. No Comments on Commissioned Research Reports

Key features in a nutshell

commissioned or contract research allows policymakers to receive the scientific expertise to assess policy issues
commissioned research reports can include evaluations, fact-finding, surveys, feasibility studies, or forecasting exercises; commissioned research reports vary in length and scope

How does the format work?

Commissioned research reports are an established format for policymakers to receive scientific expertise. For example, policymakers can commission research (or contract research) to

evaluate a law, funding programme, or other policy initiatives (e.g., questions like “Did the legal regulations reduce carb emissions in transport?” “Why did only a few companies apply for state subsidies to introduce energy-efficient technologies in their production facilities?”)
find facts and conduct surveys (e.g., “What are the effects of microplastics on fish populations in rivers?” “How satisfied are citizens with public transport?”)
conduct feasibility studies (e.g., “Is it technically possible and economically feasible to change the accounting software in government agencies?” “Which mines can nuclear waste be stored in?”)
carry out forecasting exercises (“How many elderly people will be living in care homes in 20 years?” “How will climate change affect food security?”)

Commissioned research projects vary in scope, duration, and budget. They can range from small-scale projects, which an individual scientist can complete in a week, to large-scale projects that require the participation of dozens of scientists over several years. They can also vary with respect to their scientific “publishability”: depending on the academic discipline and type of research, commissioned research reports can be standard scholarly publications scientists write. Or scientists may have to adjust to unfamiliar types of research regarding research questions, structure, and format.

All state bodies and political parties can commission research reports. A common way to do that is to publish a call for tenders, which outlines the aim and budget of the commissioned research. Depending on the type of research, scientists might compete with think tanks, consultancies, NGOs, law firms, and other businesses when submitting a bid proposal.

There are numerous models for agreements between scientists and policymakers. If the following issues for tenders have not been covered by the calls, scientists should address them before applying or signing a contract:

Will the commissioned research report be published? If so, will it be published immediately or after a retention period? Can you list the reports on your website?
Who owns the research findings and data? Can they be used for other research projects?
Who owns the copyright? Do you have permission or the authority to publish the commissioned research reports or sections of the reports in scientific publications?
How detailed and strict are the terms of the agreement? Can you alter them during the project? For example, are you allowed to adjust the research question or methodology? Can you add additional questions to a survey?
What happens if you cannot make the deadline?
Do your clients in the policymaking institution expect you to present interim results/reports, or are they happy to receive the final research report eight months later?
Who is going to read the commissioned research report?
Do you have to provide policy recommendations?
What items does the budget cover? Is there also a budget for travel, workshops, and other events?

Address these questions before starting the research project! Commissioned research is a significant source of income for many scientific institutions. But many scientists refrain from conducting commissioned research if they know that the research report will not count as a scholarly publication. This issue might be resolved if the research is conducted with two research outputs in mind: the commissioned research report and an academic journal (e.g., a peer-reviewed article). Discuss these issues with your client before starting the research project.

Suppose you conduct commissioned research for the first time and are unsure about structure, writing style, layout, and visualisations. If publicly available, check published commissioned research reports. Ask the clients if they can recommend reports regarding structure, writing style, and layout.

Also, keep your audience in mind: Did a unit in a government body commission a research report on a technical issue, which will most likely only be read by a few experts in the respective unit? Or did a committee in parliament commission an extensive study on a contested policy issue, which will be debated in a plenary session and result in media coverage? For example, suppose you are a chemist, and you are going to write a research report for some policy officers with a background in chemistry or a related subject. In that case, you will not have to explain every technical term and invest much time in a non-technical summary. But you should certainly do so if your report will be read by members of parliament or other policymakers who do not have a background in your discipline.

Please remember that commissioned research reports can provide the opportunity to connect with policymakers and is not limited to submitting reports. Even if your clients do not require the submission of interim results/reports, offer personal or virtual meetings to discuss their progress.

Also, if your resources allow, offer to organise a policy workshop or other policy event to discuss the results of the final research report. If your clients agree, think about inviting policymakers from other units or organisations who might be interested in the results. Senior policymakers are more likely to participate in a short event than to read a 200-page report. (CHECK our chapter on policy events.)

Tasks and resources

Scientists

In addition to preparing a funding bid, scientists have to conduct the research and prepare the research report. Depending on the contract, they might also have to prepare interim reports or present their research results at a policymaking institution. Scientists must invest weeks or months in the commissioned research project, which could take time away from their regular work.

Knowledge exchange managers and research managers (Support Stuff)

Support staff can regularly check newsletters, tender portals, and similar websites and inform the scientists at their institutions about relevant tenders.

They can share good examples with scientists and help with the structure or writing style for scientists unfamiliar with contract research.

Policymakers

Policymakers must provide information on the aims, scope, and budget. A list of Frequently Asked Questions and guidelines is very helpful for scientists.

Sources and further reading

European Commission. No date., Funding, Tenders, accessed on 28 August 2024.

Institute for Government. 2024. Using and commissioning research in government, accessed on 23 August 2024.

Hodges, Dan; Rahman, Syahirah Abdul. 2022. Commissioned research, in Tim Vorley et al. (ed.), How to engage policymakers with your research, Edwar Elgar Publishing, pp. 175-183.

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

Policy Blog

Written by Tome Sandevski. Posted in Content, Written Formats OV. 1 Comment on Policy Blog

Key features in a nutshell

A policy blog is a written analysis of a policy issue, about 900 to 2000 words. Readers like this brevity, and that’s why a catchy title that attracts readers` attention on social media and an easy writing style are essential.

Policy blogs are great for sharing timely analyses of current policy issues. Scientists can also use them to present research findings from academic publications relevant to current policy debates; a blog post that is widely read and linked can also increase the citation rates of the academic paper in question
To have their posts read by policymakers, scientists can regularly publish their blog posts on their website or via platforms like Medium or WordPress, which can be very time-consuming; or they can also publish their blog posts via an existing series of research institutions, think tanks, NGOs, and scientists
If you publish a post on your website, make sure your website allows it to be shared via social media or forwarded via e-mail
Make sure you announce your blog posts via social media

How does the format work?

Policy blogs are well structured and easy to read. They are great for sharing timely analyses of current policy issues. Scientists can also use them to present research findings from academic publications relevant to current policy debates. A widely read and linked blog post can also increase the citation rates of the academic paper in question. But blog posts are not simply summaries of existing research.

A blog post is typically structured as follows: a catchy title, an introductory paragraph with the key messages – phrased in a way that grabs the reader’s attention – followed by a brief analysis of the issue and research findings and a concluding paragraph. That`s enough for a policy blog. Visual elements like charts or tables are very helpful for explaining complex issues and keeping the reader’s attention.

Scientists should keep sentences short and use a writing style that is more informal than academic publications. They should think about their readership. If they want to focus on policy professionals in government ministries, agencies, or research services in parliamentary bodies who have expert knowledge of the topics covered in the policy blogs, scientists can use a technical writing style. if they want to reach members of parliament or their staff, and they should spell out acronyms unless they are commonly known (e.g., EU).

Policy blogs or blogs in general offer an excellent opportunity to use hyperlinks rather than footnotes or endnotes, which make the text shorter and easier to follow.

A short bio of three to four sentences should be included at the beginning or end. This bio should provide information on expertise, key publications, and policy experience rather than information on the visiting fellowship in 2007. Scientists should also add links to their websites and social media channels. Adding a comments section to the blog sites is an excellent way for scientists to interact with their readers if they wish to do so.

Challenges (and how to address them)

A blog is a concise text. Scientists therefore need to consider the key messages they want to convey. They can use an existing academic publication as the basis of a blog post. But they should present the findings of the publication that are relevant rather than summarising the publication itself. For that reason, scientists can dispense with sections on methods and literature reviews when writing blog posts.

Another question is: How do blog posts reach the right audience? Scientists have two options. First, they can publish their blog posts on their website or platforms like Medium or WordPress. This approach works if scientists are well known in the policy world or if policymakers follow their social media accounts. Second, scientists should blog regularly if they want to publish their blog posts via their websites or blogging platforms.

Alternatively, scientists can identify well-known blog series published by other research institutions, think tanks, or NGOs. Many blog series welcome contributions from external scientists, who can also approach colleagues who are well-known bloggers regarding a joint blog post.

Tasks and resources

Scientists

Content. Scientists can identify possible topics for policy blogs by following policy debates. They may also have to read about a current policy issue and reflect on the key messages when writing the post.

Organisational issues. Scientists must be certain the policy blog will reach policymakers. If they need mailing lists, websites, or social media channels to disseminate the policy blogs, they should approach research centres, think tanks, or NGOs that have tremendous reach and accept policy blogs from external contributors. (See section on challenges)

Resources with respect to time. Scientists should be able to write a blog n a couple of hours. Nonetheless, they might have to conduct original research when analysing a timely issue. They should be constantly asking themselves if they can extract a policy blog from a journal article or other lengthy publication.

Knowledge exchange managers and research managers (Support Stuff)

Knowledge exchange managers can assist scientists in writing policy blogs by informing them about current policy issues. Knowledge exchange officers can follow media coverage, subscribe to policymaking institutions’ newsletters, and read official documents such as strategy papers or legislation. Knowledge exchange managers can read research articles and use Google or ChatGPT to link research output to current policy debates. They can talk to scientists regarding current policy issues and make suggestions for the structure and content of a policy blog. After reading the scientists’ journal articles, press officers often send drafts for press releases to scientists on current research results, which the scientists can then comment on. Knowledge exchange officers can operate in a similar fashion and produce draft policy blogs which scientists can develop further. Such an approach saves time for scientists.

Knowledge exchange managers are vital in disseminating policy blogs. They can identify readers by browsing organisation charts or committee members in parliaments. They can communicate the policy briefs via mailing lists, websites, and social media. If they need more reach regarding social media followers, mailing list recipients, or website visitors, knowledge exchange managers can identify other research institutions, think tanks, or NGOs with a broad reach and accept external contributions.

Sources and further reading

Cairney, Paul. 2016. Writing a policy paper and blog post, accessed on 21 August 2024.

Dunleavy, Patrick. 2026. How to write a blog post from your journal article in eleven easy steps, accessed on 21 August 2024.

Evidence and Policy Blog. (no date).

Bibby, Bick. 2019. Blogging for a policy audience, accessed on 21 August 2024.

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

Policy Brief

Written by Tome Sandevski. Posted in Content, Written Formats OV. No Comments on Policy Brief

Key features in a nutshell

a policy brief is a written analysis of a policy issue no more than a few pages long
policy briefs usually present both scientific findings and policy recommendations
policy briefs can analyse recent events; scientists can also write them to synthesise policy-relevant knowledge from journal articles or other lengthy scholarly work.

How does the format work?

Policy briefs are well-structured and easy-to-read. They are usually comprised of six parts: title, summary, introduction of policy issue, presentation of research findings, policy recommendations, sources, and appendix.

It should be noted that scientists compete for the attention of policymakers with businesses, lobby organisations, NGOs, and think tanks, whose staff are usually trained and experienced in writing policy briefs.

The first page of the policy brief is the most important. Scientists must understand that many policymakers will only read the first page or paragraph. Therefore, scientists must choose a catchy title reflecting the policy’s relevance or key findings. Examples of catchy titles can be found below.

The summary presents the key messages and should not exceed two paragraphs. Therefore, present your key messages in the summary using visualisation features like a textbox, thick print, bullet points, or a combination of them. Focus on 2-4 key messages. If your topic requires more than 2-4 key messages, consider publishing two policy briefs instead of one.

The following section introduces the policy issue. Explain clearly and concisely why the issue matters for policymaking. If clarification is needed on whether the issue is relevant for policymakers, read our post.

The following section will present your research findings: What, after reading this section, will the policymaker know that she didn’t know before? Why are these findings important? This section leads to the policy recommendations which are supposed to help policymakers draft or implement policies. Provide specific recommendations and avoid generalisations (“The government has to increase its efforts to save the environment”). Policy recommendations should be sound, even if policymakers are not likely to take them up in the short term.

In many cases, it took scientists decades to see concrete actions resulting from their policy recommendations. But scientists should know the political, legal, and financial implications of their policy recommendations’. Scientists and policymakers can argue which recommendations are politically, financially, and legally feasible, but scientists should refrain from recommendations that will never be implemented, such “to save electricity, Parliament should make the production and consumption of electricity illegal.” In some countries (e.g., Germany), policy briefs focus on analysis rather than policy recommendations.

The final section should include the sources or appendices, such as data sets. We recommend publishing data sets, a section on methods, and other lengthy information on your website and providing the URL in the sources section rather than adding pages of appendices to your policy brief.

Regarding style, keep sentences short and easy to understand. Think about your audience: if you want to focus on experts in policymaking institutions, you can employ a rather technical writing style. Avoid jargon and acronyms if you expect generalists to read your policy brief. Always let peers read your paper.

As in other contexts, timing is critical if scientists want to achieve impact. Our article on timing is available here.

Tasks and resources

Scientists

Content. Scientists can write the policy brief on their own. If they are too busy to do so, they can outline the structure and main arguments to knowledge exchange managers who can then write the policy briefs.

Organisational issues. Scientists must know if the policy briefs will reach policymakers. If they don’t have mailing lists, websites, or social media channels to disseminate the policy briefs, they should approach research centres, think tanks, or NGOs with tremendous reach and accept policy briefs from external contributors.

Resources regarding time. Scientists should be able to write a policy brief in a couple of hours. However, they might have to conduct original research when analysing a timely issue. They should be constantly asking themselves if they can extract a policy brief from a journal article or other lengthy publication.

Knowledge exchange managers and research managers (Support Stuff)

Knowledge exchange managers can assist scientists in writing policy briefs by informing them about current policy issues. To do so, knowledge exchange officers can follow media coverage, subscribe to policymaking institutions’ newsletters and read official documents like strategy papers or legislation. Knowledge exchange managers can read research articles and use Google or ChatGPT to link research output with current policy debates.

Knowledge exchange managers can talk to scientists regarding current policy issues and make suggestions for the structure and content of a policy brief. After reading the scientists ‘ journal articles, press officers often send drafts for press releases to scientists on current research results, which the scientist can then comment ons. Knowledge exchange officers operate in a similar fashion and produce draft policy briefs which scientists can comment on. Such an approach saves time for scientists.

Knowledge exchange managers are vital in disseminating policy briefs. They can identify readers by browsing organisation charts or committee members in parliaments. They can communicate the policy briefs via mailing lists, websites, and social media. If they lack reach regarding social media followers, mailing list recipients, or website visitors, knowledge exchange managers can identify other research institutions, think tanks, or NGOs with a broad reach and accept external contributions.

Sources and further reading

Did COVID-19 accelerate the green transition? An international assessment of fiscal spending measures to support low-carbon technologies, OECD Policy Brief, 19 October 2023.

Egorov, Konstantin, Why did Russian economy not collapse under sanctions: Pre-war evidence, SAFE Policy Letter No. 102. September 2023.

See also contributions on the following issues

Understanding policy relevance, policy blogs, and timing.

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@uni-frankfurt.de

Policy Sessions at Academic Conferences

Written by Tome Sandevski. Posted in Content, Dialogue-Oriented Formats OV. No Comments on Policy Sessions at Academic Conferences

Description – Key features in a nutshell

policy sessions at academic conferences are a great way to gain perspectives on current research issues
they are well-suited for connecting policymakers with scientists from various research areas, institutions, and countries
the convenors can organise the sessions as roundtables, presentations by scientists and policymakers followed by Q&A, panel discussions, world cafes, fishbowls, and other formats that make dialogue between scientists and policymakers possible
The convenors must decide on the goals, content, structure, and target groups when organising policy sessions

How does the format work?

Academic conferences are essential for sharing the latest research results with scientific peers. Such conferences can also offer excellent opportunities to establish dialogue between scientists and policymakers. While the content of pure academic sessions might also be relevant for policymakers, discussions in academic sessions might be difficult for policymakers unfamiliar with scientific debates, methodologies, technical terms, or scholarly jargon. Policy sessions, which can also be called stakeholder outreach sessions, are a great way to open the conference to non-academic audiences. Policy sessions can occur as roundtables, panel discussions, and presentations by scientists and policymakers followed by Q&A, world cafes, fishbowls, or other formats, allowing for dialogue between scientists and policymakers.

The convenors of smaller academic conferences can include policy sessions when planning its conferences. Convenors of large conferences can call for proposals for policy sessions.

Conveners must take the sessions` content, structure, and target groups into consideration. Do they want to cover specific issues requiring technical knowledge or debate “big questions”? The latter is better suited for members of parliament or ministers, while the former for policy professionals in ministries or agencies with specialised knowledge. In any case, they must select timely policy issues relevant to policymakers.

Academic conferences are essential for learning about state-of-the-art academic research. But listening to paper presentations for several hours can be exhausting for scientists, however. Therefore, policy sessions in the afternoon or evening can provide a welcome change to paper presentations.

Also, the most fruitful discussions with policymakers often occur during the coffee break rather than on the podium. Therefore, the convenors should provide a setting that allows for informal conversation. For example, they can opt for buffets and high tables, allowing participants to change tables and talk to different scientists.

Challenges (and ways to address them)

Members of parliament and ministers are notoriously busy and receive dozens of requests regarding event participation every week. Convenors should therefore consider the type of policymakers they want to invite. If they wish the policymakers to participate in panel discussions hundreds will attend, they can focus on ministers or those in similar positions. If they want to invite policymakers to small roundtable discussions, they should consider addressing policy officers at the level of units. Policy session convenors should also consider making the sessions more appealing to policymakers. For example, participating in a panel discussion with scientists and stakeholders from the third sector or the business world appeals to politicians eager to engage in stakeholder dialogue. Convenors of the session should not be offended if policymakers, including ministers or members of parliaments, suggest sending their staff on their behalf unless they have planned to involve very distinguished scientists like Nobel Prize laureates in the policy discussion.

While creating new knowledge is a goal in itself in science, policymakers need to look for the policy relevance of research findings. Discussions on theoretical debates or methodological approaches are vital in academic conferences, which might take more work for policymakers to follow. Therefore, scientists should focus on sharing their relevant knowledge rather than on issues that policymakers don’t understand. Scientists should also inform policymakers that many scientists lack extensive knowledge of policymaking challenges and the functioning of policymaking institutions like parliaments or ministries.

Tasks and resources

Scientists

The scientists convening the session must plan its structure, prepare guiding questions for the moderator and participants, and write a session abstract.

If they need to become more familiar with the policy issues, the scientists who convene the session or play a significant role, such as panellists, should study the issues by consulting official publications like strategy papers, laws or proposed legislation. They should also read the bios or job descriptions of participating policymakers (politicians). For job descriptions, policy officers; organisation charts are beneficial. They should think about the key messages they want to communicate to policymakers.

Support staff (knowledge exchange managers and research managers)

Support staff can help identify possible topics for the policy sessions, suggest including them as part of the academic events, brief the participating scientists on current policy issues. They can also provide assistance regarding the session’s organisation, like booking meeting rooms or hotel rooms. They can also help prepare press releases and social media posts before or after the policy session.

Policymakers

While scientists must present their knowledge in an understandable way to policymakers, policymakers must also show the challenges of policymaking to a lay audience. Elected politicians are used to talking to their constituents and participating in public events. This might be different for policymakers working in ministries or agencies. If policymakers have not had prior contact with scientists, they should prepare key messages that are easy to understand. They should also provide basic knowledge about their institutions’ work and policy challenges.

Academic conferences are a great way to connect with various scientists. Policymakers (or their assistants) should therefore check the list of participants and panels to identify scientists whom they might like to meet.

Finally, support staff can help policymakers register for the conference. The application procedure for large conferences can be very complicated, so support staff should conduct the registration process on behalf of the policymakers.

Required funding for activities

Depending on the location and duration of the conference, expenses can include catering, conference equipment, rent for the conference venue, travel, and accommodation. Travel and other costs can be included in grant applications for conference funding. If conference participants have to pay a conference fee, the convenors should ensure that policymakers are exempt from paying the fees.

Policy sessions at conferences are a resource-friendly format because the scientists will attend the conference anyway.

Examples

Dr Fabienne Pradella on organising policy sessions on the Sustainable Development Goals and healthy nutrition at the annual conventions of the German Society for Epidemiology (DGEpi).

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

Guided Tours of Research Sites as a Policy Engagement Format

Written by Tome Sandevski. Posted in Content, Dialogue-Oriented Formats OV. No Comments on Guided Tours of Research Sites as a Policy Engagement Format

Description – Key features in a nutshell

guided tours are a great interactive experience: scientists can present their research and policymakers can ask questions
guided tours are an easy to organise format allowing for the involvement of scientists who are usually not in touch with policymakers and vice versa
the research sites or labs must allow for a high degree of visualisation of research issues
the scientists must communicate clearly and concisely and allow for questions from the policymakers

How does the format work?

Guided tours of research sites provide great opportunities for policymakers to gain better understanding of research activities and their possible applications. Researchers can demonstrate machines or applications and thus not only explain underlying mechanisms but also elaborate on possible applications which are of relevance to policymakers.

A single researcher can guide policymakers through a lab or other research site. Alternatively, the policymakers might move from station to station, which are explained by different researchers at the respective station. Guided tours can create a lasting impact because they activate various senses.

Policymakers listen to the information provided by the scientists while simultaneously seeing, touching, or even smelling objects or applications. Visits allow scientists to present their current research. Since policymakers can ask scientists questions and vice versa, visits of research sites are a great interactive experience for both sides.

Policymakers can visit research sites on an individual basis, in small or larger groups. Groups of policymakers can include participants from a single or various policymaking institutions. The duration of guided tours can vary between an hour or several hours depending on the size of the research site, the number of stations, and the time the scientists want to spend preparing and conducting the guided tours. Guided tours of research sites can be organised as stand-alone events or as parts of conferences, workshops, or other events that allow the participants to interact.

The scientists must communicate clearly and concisely and leave enough time for questions from the policymakers. Early career researchers or senior scientists can conduct guided tours.

The research sites should allow for a high degree of visualisation. For example, while scientists might conduct groundbreaking research on health issues in a lab, showing rows of test tubes and petri dishes might not add value to the transfer of knowledge via formats like Powerpoint presentations or lectures. Guided tours through labs, where policymaker see how robots move or where they can use virtual-reality-headsets, may, however, help them better understand the potentials and challenges of technological innovations.

Tasks and resources

Scientists

Content. Researchers need to prepare brief presentations for the objects and applications they would like to show. If various scientists are involved in the guided tour, coordination will be needed between the researchers. Depending on the structure of the tour, the number of participants, and the background of the participant, the guides may ask the policymakers before the tour regarding the issues they are most interested in and structure the tour accordingly.

Organisational issues. Scientists may also have to rearrange or even clean up the objects they would like to present. The scientists must also assess whether the scientists at the research sites can work as usual or whether their work will be interrupted during the guided tour.

Resources in terms of time. Conducting guided tours should not take more than a couple of hours. If the scientists never prepared presentations on the objects and applications they want to show to the policymakers, preparing the presentations to an outside audience can take several hours and a day or two. But once scientists have prepared the presentations and the course of the tour, replicating the exercise the next time will take less time.

If the researchers opt to evaluate the format, they will have to prepare an evaluation sheet which has to be sent to the policymakers after the tour.

Resources in terms of funding. Possible items include catering, reimbursement of travel costs for policymakers, advertisement of the event, or compensation for participating researchers.

Knowledge exchange managers and research managers

Knowledge exchange managers can provide crucial support to researchers by identifying policymakers and inviting policymakers. Knowledge exchange managers can follow current policy developments to brief scientists about topics of great interest to policymakers.

In addition, knowledge exchange managers can provide support by designing leaflets and sharepics, prepare social media posts and press releases, organise catering (if needed), help the guests from policymaking institutions with directions, and deal with administrative issues like granting access to research sites to guests and following safety protocols.

Knowledge exchange managers should provide a list of the policymakers attending the guided tours to the scientists. They can write follow-up mails to both policymakers and scientists to stay in touch after the guided tours.

Knowledge exchange officers can disseminate evaluation sheets to the policymakers and scientists or conduct feedback-calls with them.

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

Pairing schemes focusing on multiple face-to-face or virtual meetings

Written by Tome Sandevski. Posted in Content, Dialogue-Oriented Formats OV. No Comments on Pairing schemes focusing on multiple face-to-face or virtual meetings

Description – Key features in a nutshell

this format enables scientists to conduct face-to-face meetings with policymakers in one day or over several days – and vice versa
by conducting meetings with policymakers, scientists learn about policy perspectives on their research, while policymakers learn scientific perspectives on the policy issues they are dealing with
face-to-face meetings are a very effective means of knowledge exchange and can establish long-term networks between scientists and policymakers

How does the format work?

The process is straightforward: scientists and policymakers have informal chats on policy issues. The policymakers thus gain scientific perspectives on the policy issues they are dealing with.

The scientists learn policy perspectives on their research topics. The policymakers can ask specific questions (e.g., How do smartphones affect the reading abilities of school children in primary schools?) or general questions (e.g., How is digitalisation changing the finance industry? How do algorithms work?) or general questions. The meetings usually last one hour and can take place as one-to-one meetings or in small group settings.

What are the features of such programmes?

Bidirectional knowledge transfer. While policymaking professionals learn about academic expertise, the participating researchers learn about policy perspectives on their research.
Dialogue greatly increases knowledge. Face-to-face meetings are a very effective means of communication, and the interlocutors can decide on the topics they want to discuss.
Voluntary nature. Only deeply motivated people apply and participate in meetings.
Time efficiency. The policymaking professionals can pick the researchers they want to meet from comprehensive lists instead of browsing websites for hours to identify possible experts. Similarly, the participating scientists receive requests for meetings from the programmes’ office, including possible time slots and the interests of the policymaking professionals.
Open dialogue in an informal setting. The meetings offer a rare opportunity for both sides to have thorough and open conversations. Unlike hearings in parliaments or formal meetings in ministries, they take place in an informal setting, which helps participants open up. No records of the meetings are produced.
Diversity in terms of academic disciplines. If, for example, a policymaker asks how energy consumption can be reduced, meetings can be conducted with researchers from architecture on energy saving construction, meetings with engineering experts on energy-saving technical solutions, and economists on the issues of energy taxes. Likewise, scientists can meet policymakers from various units of the same institution or multiple institutions.
Bringing together people who would have never met otherwise. Many policymakers have yet to contact scientists, and meetings are an easy way to connect such policymakers with scientists.
The format enables us to connect many scientists with many policymakers. For example, the Rhine-Main Universities organised 2,800 meetings between 300 policymakers and 750 scientists.

How do universities connect with policymaking institutions? Universities can ask policymakers to submit lists of topics (e.g., biodiversity, climate change) they are interested in. The universities then assess whether they can organise face-to-face meetings with scientists. If their assessment is positive, the universities can propose possible dates for meetings with scientists or ask the policymakers to submit possible dates. Alternatively, universities can ask policymaking institutions if they want scientists to conduct face-to-face meetings with policymakers. the universities can then share lists of scientists interested in visiting policymaking institutions to conduct meetings.

What are the benefits of enhancing institutional capacity building and researchers` competencies regarding policy engagement?

Such programmes can have a huge impact on enhancing institutional capacities since they can involve hundreds or even thousands of researchers who can connect with policymakers and learn about current challenges in policymaking.

Tasks and resources

Scientists

Scientists should examine the websites of the participating policymaking institutions to gain an overview of their policy issues. If the policymakers have submitted lists of questions, the scientists should consider possible answers in advance. Of course, the scientists also have to conduct the meetings.

Knowledge exchange managers and research managers

While meetings between policymakers and scientists usually last about an hour, organising the meetings is very time-consuming. When conducting such formats for the first time, knowledge exchange managers or research managers must inform scientists and policymakers about the format. They must match the scientists’ expertise with the policymakers’ areas of interest, which can take several weeks, depending on the format and number of participants. The managers have to schedule the meetings, compile lists of participants and conduct brief evaluations.

Policymakers

To derive great benefit from the meetings, the policymakers should prepare for the meeting by visiting the websites of the scientist to learn more about their areas of expertise. If policymakers meet scientists from academic disciplines with whom they need to become more familiar, they should read a short article on the respective academic discipline. A Wikipedia article will do in most cases. It’s perfectly fine for policymakers not to be familiar with the expertise of the scientists they meet. However, policymakers should understand why the meetings take place. Otherwise, they might spend too much time discussing the researcher`s expertise rather than policy issues. Policymakers should also prepare questions or topics they would like to focus on.

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

Hearings and Expert Talks in Parliament

Written by Tome Sandevski. Posted in Content, Dialogue-Oriented Formats OV. No Comments on Hearings and Expert Talks in Parliament

Description – Key features in a nutshell

hearings and similar formats, like expert talks in parliament, are essential ways for members of parliaments to gather evidence from scientists
the invited experts usually have only a limited amount of time to make their statements and answer questions from members of parliaments
the committees usually ask to assess past, present, or proposed policies (e.g., draft legislation); they often ask for policy recommendations
at present, parliaments often publish recordings or minutes of hearings on their websites
hearings can also attract media coverage

How does the format work?

Parliamentary committees organise hearings when assessing past or present policies or preparing new legislation so they can receive expertise from scientists and stakeholders, called witnesses in many English-speaking countries. The scientist can usually submit a brief written statement before the hearing.

Parliamentary staff communicate the dates and time slots to the scientists who can deliver their expertise in person or virtually. After listening to the invited experts’ reports, the parliamentary committee members ask questions. The parliamentary committee allocates a minimal amount of time for scientists to present their statements on a policy issue and answer questions from the committee members.

Parliaments on the regional and national levels, as well as the European Parliament, usually require external experts to assess policies. The provision of expertise to members of parliament for improving policies is a critical task, and hearings provide an official channel for presenting evidence to policymakers and engaging in dialogue with lawmakers. However, scientists should understand that providing evidence and policy recommendations in parliament does not entail that policymakers will follow their assessments when evaluating policies or drafting laws.

Often, citizens may attend hearings. The hearings also attract media attention if they cover controversial topics that have been debated in public before. Many parliaments publish transcripts and recordings on their websites and also offer live streams of hearings. You can also find numerous recordings of parliamentary hearings in various countries on YouTube.

Challenges

The committees usually grant experts only a few minutes to make their statements and answer questions. Often, displays of running clocks or chairs are used to remind the experts about the remaining time. Unlike time limits at academic conferences, the chairpersons of the parliamentary committees enforce the time limits, which can be a cultural shock for scientists.

Since the parliamentary committees invited the scientists, scientists may be perceived to be affiliated with certain political parties. While party affiliation is a good thing, some scientists want to avoid leaving the impression of following a party line. Also, heated discussions between scientists and committee members can occur depending on the political culture in various countries. The opposite can also happen: committee members may have already made up their minds on the respective policy issues and consider the hearing a mandatory but useless exercise, which can be frustrating for scientists as well. Nonetheless, scientists should understand that hearings provide networking opportunities which scientists should explore. A political science professor once said: “I don’t participate in hearings to make a statement in the committee room but to have informal discussions in the hallways.”

Tasks and resources

Scientists

If required, scientists must submit a written statement before the hearing. They should prepare brief statements and practice giving short answers. Scientists should also understand that parliament members have limited resources regarding time to read the experts` statements in advance. They must therefore not only focus on the content of their written statements but also think about the length and structure of the statement, visualisations, and language. The easier the statement is to read, the more likely committee members will remember the key messages.

Scientists should also consider their role. Do they want to merely provide expertise on a policy issue or advocate for a specific policy outcome? If the latter, they will have to prepare for the hearings by studying draft legislation, the positions of the members of parliament on the policy issues, and the statements provided by the other invited external experts.

If the secretariat of the parliament provides guides or a FAQ question, scientists should read these documents, which provide helpful information on access to the buildings, time limits, or reimbursements. If the scientist needs additional information on issues like dress code or how to address the members of parliament or the chairperson, they should contact the staffers organising the hearing. More and more parliaments allow for the scientists to participate virtually. If opportunities arise during coffee breaks or chats in the hallway, scientists can also ask the staffers of the members of parliament or the parliamentary staffers for feedback regarding their statements.

Support staff (knowledge exchange managers and research managers)

The parliamentary committee members invite scientists. They often ask the support staff or their assistants to identify possible scientists who can be invited.

Updated and easily understood websites and expert directories are beneficial for staffers at parliaments in identifying potential experts. Other factors include fostering connections with members of parliament or staffers in parliaments and publishing relevant and accessible research. Support staff can help organise policy events or communicate the expertise of their scientists via policy events, newsletters, social media posts, and other formats.

Support staff can also keep records of scientists participating in hearings or similar events in parliament to connect scientists participating in hearings for the first time with their peers, who are already familiar with the format. Support staff can also ask the scientists about their experience and write short guides or FAQ lists for their scientists.

Scientists can increase their visibility among members of parliament, however, by maintaining understandable websites, publishing relevant research, or actively participating in policy events.

Policymakers

Members of parliament and their support staff have to read the statements in advance and prepare questions they would like to ask the scientists during the hearings.

Required funding for activity

The parliaments usually cover travel expenses and provide a daily allowance.

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

Introduction to Science Shops

Written by Science Policy. Posted in Actors & Institutions OV, Content. No Comments on Introduction to Science Shops

What is a Science Shop?

“Science Shops are organizations that make knowledge available to civil society organizations that don’t have the means to pay or carry out research themselves. Science Shops can be embedded within other organizations (universities, research institutions, companies) or established as independent organizations in the form of non-governmental or other not-for-profit organizations.” (Science Shop Establishment Guide)

Key features at a glance

A Science Shop creates dialogue between civil society organizations and the research community to support these initiatives
A Science Shop is concerned with sharing ideas and developing appropriate responses
For each project, public feedback and/or an accessible deliverable are used to make all the knowledge recommendations that have emerged available

Introduction

What is the format about?

Associations, local authorities, and citizens’ groups sometimes need specific insights and knowledge to consolidate their actions, assess their impact, or discover new approaches.

The Science Shops provide a link between the research community and civil society, encouraging dialogue and collaboration between them.

Thanks to the space for exchange and monitoring, they offer potential for experimentation, particularly through seminars and workshops.

Associations, citizens’ groups, and local authorities are supported in their questioning by researchers who mobilize students in the form of internships, challenges, or group work.

How does the format work?

The Call for interest => formulation of requests. This call for expressions of interest is open for a fairly long period of approximately four months (generally from February to May) so that all applications can be received and properly processed collectively.

A question of general interest is submitted to the Science Shop, studied, and reformulated in coordination with a scientific committee to develop specialized support.

The Scientific Committee => selection of projects. Each year, the Science Shop brings together a scientific committee composed of experts who examine the applications submitted through the call for expressions of interest and select around fifteen projects to be carried out each year. In some cases, the scientific committee redirects applications to other formats.
The design and dissemination of offers => Applications and interviews
The completion of group tutorial projects and of individual placements

A team of researchers or students is then contacted and put together by the science shop to carry out a field study and work with these civil society players to develop a practical response to their problem.

The dissertations / presentations / presentation of results => potential political decision makers in attendance

A public presentation and/or an accessible final publication will make available all the knowledge that has emerged.

Tasks and resources

This is a program to support the stakeholders in a project, promoting dialogue and collaboration between civil society organizations and scientific research.

It supports researchers who want to be more in touch with different stakeholders in the field and is interested in participatory research projects. They will become involved by taking part in seminars and workshops and will benefit from centralized resources on the theme of participatory research.

The Science Shop gives researchers the opportunity to supervise a student or a group project and to support the implementation of research in conjunction with all the players involved.

It also allows them to take part in the work of exploring and supporting social demand, enabling them to find and advise partner structures for collective student projects or personal projects.

For large-scale research projects, they can call on the expertise of the science shop’s third-party supervisors (participatory research supervisors).