Author: Tome Sandevski

is Programme Manager for Science-Policy Dialogue at Goethe University Frankfurt and coordinates joint policy engagement activities of the Rhine-Main Universities (Frankfurt, TU Darmstadt and Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz). He designs and delivers training on policy engagement for researchers and research managers.

Making Events Appealing to Policymakers

Written by Tome Sandevski on June 23, 2026. Posted in Content, Teaching and Learning Methods CS. No Comments on Making Events Appealing to Policymakers

Summary: Key features in a nutshell

This exercise helps scientists and knowledge-exchange officers understand the difference between academic and policy-oriented events.
Policymakers need event descriptions and invitations that clearly demonstrate why attending the event would benefit them.

How does the format work?

Step 1: Share the two letters of invitation for a fictitious conference in Brussels with the workshop participants. Provide the following instruction: “You are working for a member of the European Parliament, and your boss has received two invitations to take part in panel discussions in Brussels. Unfortunately, both are scheduled for the same time. Your boss asks you to review the invitations and to recommend the one most likely to benefit her in terms of access to policy-relevant research, stakeholder dialogue, and visibility. Please read both invitations. Which one do you recommend? What aspects of the invitations do you find convincing? What aspects could be improved?”

Step 2: Ask the participants to read the two invitations. They have three minutes to do so.

Step 3: Ask the participants to identify the differences between the two invitations. What do they appreciate about the structure of each event? Which event is likely to be more beneficial for the MEP?

Invitation 1: Tis one has several weaknesses. First, it is too long, making it difficult to locate key information such as the date and venue. Second, it reads like a summary of an academic conference program clearly aimed at a scientific audience, featuring numerous acronyms and references to scholars who may be well known within their fields but are unlikely to be recognised outside academia. Third, the presence of major publishing houses and the launch of a new dataset may be compelling reasons for researchers to attend but are unlikely to attract policymakers. Fourth, a panel composed of three academics and one policymaker is not particularly appealing to a political audience. Finally, the event is held in Vilvoorde, which, while only around 11 km from the European Parliament, still takes approximately 30 minutes to reach by train or car — meaning the MEP would need to set aside at least an hour just for travel.

Invitation 2: The second is more effective for several reasons. First, it is concise and presents key information — date, venue, and purpose — immediately. Second, it makes clear from the outset why the MEP has been contacted personally. Third, the panel features one researcher with demonstrable policy experience as a member of an OECD expert group, alongside two representatives of prominent associations. Fourth, the invitation indicates that the event is expected to be well attended and likely to attract media coverage — both of which matter to policymakers. Finally, the venue is within walking distance of the European Parliament.

Step 4: Ask participants to identify and write down the features that make events appealing to policymakers.

For groups of up to ten participants, it is recommended that the findings be discussed in plenary using flip charts or interactive tools such as Mentimeter. For larger groups, participants should be split into breakout groups and given cards and pens to record their answers, which can then be shared and discussed in plenary.

Possible challenges and how to address them

Both invitations represent idealized types. While venues close to the European Parliament are advantageous, they may not always be affordable. Similarly, organizers cannot guarantee high attendance from prominent participants. It is therefore entirely reasonable to organize purely academic events when the resources or capacity to make them relevant for policy are not available.

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

Workshop facilitators

Facilitators are responsible for distributing printed or electronic versions of the invitations to participants. They should familiarize themselves with both invitations and reflect on the differences between the two events in advance.

Scientists and other participants

Participants read both invitation letters and take part in the subsequent discussion. The exercise and discussion together require between 10 and 20 minutes.

Policymakers

If policymakers are present, the facilitator should involve them in the discussion and invite them to share what criteria an event must meet for them to attend.

See invitation letters_rmu

Sources and further reading

Please add URL or publications, if applicable.

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

Way to Go: Policy Options for Promoting Sustainable Public Transportation in Europe

Written by Tome Sandevski on June 23, 2026. Posted in Content, Teaching and Learning Methods CS. No Comments on Way to Go: Policy Options for Promoting Sustainable Public Transportation in Europe

Description of Exercise

Workshop Exercise — Giving Presentations to Policymaker

Scenario: You work for a Member of the European Parliament. One of your friends is a researcher who coordinates an EU project on sustainable public
transportation in Europe. Your friend has been invited to present the project’s research findings and policy recommendations at a conference in Brussels.

See the full presentation

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

Scenario

Written by Tome Sandevski on June 23, 2026. Posted in Content, Teaching and Learning Methods CS. No Comments on Scenario

You are a researcher and member of an interdisciplinary research group on healthy nutrition, comprising scholars from law, nutrition science, agriculture, medicine, economics, sociology, and communication.

The mayor’s office has just launched a campaign to boost the city’s image by establishing it as a centre of healthy, regional, and organic food. Only a few days into the campaign, a market research institute publishes a survey on fast food consumption across the country. The results are embarrassing: your city has the highest per capita consumption of unhealthy fast food in the entire country. The media picks up the story quickly, and social media fills with memes mocking your city’s eating habits.

The local association of physicians responds with an open letter, warning that diet-related illness rates in the city are well above the national average. The letter points to the high concentration of fast food chains and calls on the mayor to take concrete action. The open letter is widely cited in the media and seized upon by opposition parties in the city council. The local branch of the consumers’ association calls for a ban on fast food advertising and higher taxation of fast food chains. It also proposes that the local government should subsidise restaurants providing healthy food by leasing government-owned buildings at below-market rents. Parent associations and environmental NGOs support these demands.

Opposition parties go further, dismissing the mayor’s campaign as elitist: promoting organic and regional food is all well and good, they argue, but what about citizens who simply cannot afford it?

The association of fast food chains soon enters the debate, pushing back against what it sees as unfair blame. Its representatives argue that their restaurants offer a wide range of healthy choices at prices that fit any budget. The association also makes clear that it will take legal action against the local government if the proposed measures are implemented.

Against this backdrop, the mayor’s office reaches out to your interdisciplinary research group and asks you to draft policy recommendations on how the consumption of healthy food can be promoted in the city. The grant agreement gives you full editorial independence — only you decide what goes into the recommendations and when they are published. Your university’s legal office reviews and approves the agreement, and you are satisfied with the budget.

You bring the request to your research group. The reactions could not be more different:

Researcher 1: “Our job is fundamental research. We publish in peer-reviewed journals — that is how we advance our careers and contribute to science. Writing policy recommendations is not what we are here for, and there are already countless policy recommendations available online. If the mayor’s office wants some, they can find them. On top of that, I have no interest in being dragged into a legal dispute with a fast food chain.”

Researcher 2: “We cannot ignore the fact that our research is publicly funded. An unhealthy diet has serious consequences for people’s lives, and we have the knowledge to help. I suggest we develop an interactive map or app that allows residents to assess the nutritional value of meals available across the city. That way, we empower people to make informed choices without singling out or attacking any restaurant.”

Researcher 3: “An app that only shows nutritional scores is not enough. We need to name specific dishes and the places that serve them. We should pay particular attention to eateries that cater to people with dietary restrictions — whether for ethical, religious, or health reasons. We cannot ignore the ecological dimension either: the carbon footprint of what we eat matters. Our city has some wonderful restaurants serving regional and organic food, and we should support them. I therefore recommend subsidising healthy food restaurants, taxing fast food chains, and banning them from advertising their products.”

Researcher 4: “Healthy food restaurants tend to be expensive. Promoting organic food that most people cannot afford does not solve anything. Besides, fast food chains are significant employers in our city — harming them economically will also harm many families in our community. I like the idea of a guide, but any guide we produce must be genuinely useful to people on tight budgets — otherwise we are simply reinforcing the elitism the opposition is already criticising.”

Researcher 1: “And if we start recommending affordable healthy options, we will inevitably end up pointing people towards fast food restaurants. I can already see the headline: ‘University researchers recommend McDonald’s.’ We will be a laughingstock in the academic community. Worse, we will hand the opposition exactly the ammunition they need to undermine the mayor. I want no part in politicising our research.”

Researcher 5: “I still think the app idea has real potential — but only if we go beyond nutritional scores. We could let users filter by price, dietary choice, and the origin of ingredients. That approach does not advocate for or against any particular restaurant. It simply gives people the tools to make their own informed decisions. In addition, we could draft a set of policy recommendations setting out the effects of taxes, advertising bans, and subsidies — explaining the pros and cons of each measure and leaving it to the local government to decide which ones to adopt.”

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

Assessing the Accessibility of (Policy) Publications

Written by Tome Sandevski on June 23, 2026. Posted in Content, Teaching and Learning Methods CS. No Comments on Assessing the Accessibility of (Policy) Publications

Putting Yourself in the Shoes of a Busy Policymaker

Key features in a nutshell

This exercise simulates the role of a parliamentary assistant to help researchers understand what busy policymakers undergo when reading policy publications.
It can be used in workshops or self-learning contexts: participants must identify the key messages of five policy publications within ten minutes.
The exercise highlights the importance of visual clarity, easily identifiable key messages, plain language, and visual elements such as bullet points, highlighted headers, tables, and graphs.

How does the format work?

Step 1: Select five publications between two and twenty pages each. Many researchers struggle to appreciate what it feels like to read publications on unfamiliar topics, so it is important that the publications cover a range of subject areas (e.g., environment, climate change, health, international security, education, AI). Choose two well-structured, accessible policy briefs that present their key messages up front —I recommend the policy briefs of theOECD, E3G, or the International Crisis Group.

Choose three other publications such as academic publications, which are more difficult to overview, because they lack elements like summaries, bullet points, or visualizations. Publications featuring a lot of body text, methods sections, and academic jargon are ideally suited for this exercise.

Step 2: Distribute either printed or electronic versions of the publications to participants along with the following instructions:

“You are working as an assistant to a member of parliament, who has a full schedule of committee meetings, interviews, and panel discussions today and tomorrow. Your boss has received five publications by post and needs topical expertise on the issues they cover. She has to take a phone call lasting approximately ten minutes and leaves the publications on your desk, asking you to brief her on their key messages once she is done. You have ten minutes to browse the publications. You are NOT allowed to use AI to summarize them. Can you identify the key messages within ten minutes? Which publications made it easy to do so — and which were difficult to review?”

Step 3: To add a degree of time pressure, announce the remaining time every two minutes. Participants must stop after ten minutes. Afterwards, ask them whether they were able to identify the key messages in each publication, and which features helped or hindered them.

Features that tend to help include summaries at the beginning, bullet points, meaningful headers and subheadings, tables, and clear, easy-to-read charts.

Features that tend to hinder include dense body text, generic or vague headers, jargon, and lengthy theory or methods sections.

For groups of up to ten participants, it is recommended to discuss the findings in plenary, using flip charts or interactive tools such as Mentimeter. For larger groups, participants should be split into breakout groups and given cards and pens to record their answers, which can then be shared and discussed in plenary.

Possible challenges and how to address them

Participants may find the exercise stressful or become frustrated when trying to identify key messages in publications on unfamiliar topics. This is an intentional phenomenon: policymakers rarely have much time and are regularly expected to engage with expert publications across a wide range of subjects.

Some participants may point out that policymakers increasingly use AI tools to summarize publications — a valid observation. But even AI-generated summaries can run to several pages. Moreover, printed publications remain in use in many countries and institutions.

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

Workshop facilitators

Facilitators are responsible for selecting the five publications and making them available — either in print or electronically. They should read all five publications themselves before the workshop. Preparation will require approximately 60 to 120 minutes; conducting the exercise will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Scientists and other participants

Participants browse the publications to identify their key messages and take part in the subsequent discussion. The exercise and discussion together require between 20 and 40 minutes.

Policymakers

If policymakers are present, the facilitator should involve them in the discussion and invite them to share what criteria a publication must meet for them to engage with it.

Sources and further reading

Please add URL or publications, if applicable.

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

Pooling Resources, Leveraging Policy Impact

Written by Tome Sandevski on June 15, 2026. Posted in Content, Cross-Cutting Issues OV. No Comments on Pooling Resources, Leveraging Policy Impact

How universities can collaborate with Think Tanks, NGOs or Foundations

Summary: Key features in a nutshell (2-5 bullet points)

Researchers at universities can benefit from collaboration with think tanks, NGOs or foundations by jointly organising policy events or publishing policy-relevant research findings, job placements, or pooling resources in terms of expertise, funding, and staff support.
While scientists at universities can provide evidence because of original research or thorough synthesis of academic literature, policy experts at think tanks, NGOs or foundations can translate academic research findings into policy-relevant formats and identify possible target groups and windows of opportunity.
Think tanks, NGOs and foundations are diverse entities: Think tanks can comprise advocacy think tanks, academic institutes or research institutes regularly conducting commissioned research for policymaking institutions. NGOs can comprise advocacy NGOs, service delivery NGOs, professional associations or business associations. Foundations provide grants NGOs or research institutions. They can also publish policy analyses or organise policy events.

How can scientists at universities collaborate with think tanks or NGOs?

Research at universities is structured around projects that produce original research and thorough synthesis of academic literature. Scientists at universities publish their research results in scientific journals. They often struggle with the following challenges:

How to communicate research findings to policymakers? Researchers use scientific jargon while often not understanding policy jargon. Formats like policy briefs or policy events differ from academic publications or academic events.
How to relate research expertise to policy demands? When to communicate research findings to policymakers? How to identify windows of opportunity? Regularly following policy debates is time-consuming. Scientists do not have access to the tacit knowledge in policymaking institutions.
Which policymakers should be addressed? How should they be approached? Identifying potential target groups by browsing parliamentary committees and organisational charts of policymaking institutions, such as ministries, directorates-general of the European Commission, or political parties, is time-consuming.

By collaborating with think tanks, NGOs or foundations, scientists can save time and money while leveraging their policy impact. Think tanks, NGOs or foundations regularly interact with policymakers. They enjoy a degree of visibility many scientists or scientific institutions struggle to achieve. Policy experts at think tanks, NGOs, or foundations closely monitor policy debates. They know whom to approach and which buzzwords to use in their publications or events. Rather than spending time and money on publications or events that go unnoticed by policymakers, scientists can conduct research, publish results, or organise policy events in collaboration with think tanks, NGOs, or foundations.

Guiding questions for researchers or research managers, when considering collaboration with think tanks, NGOs, or foundations:

Which think tanks, NGOs, or foundations work on policy issues in your area of expertise (e.g., environment, energy, security, health, digitalisation)?
What kind of publications like policy briefs, policy reports, blog posts, or factsheets do think tanks, NGOs or foundations publish? Do you appreciate the content and quality of the publications?
What type of events (e.g. panel discussions, background talks, workshops) do the think tanks, NGOs or foundations organise? Have you participated in one or several events? Did you like the organisation of the event? Did policymakers attend the events?
What impression do the websites and social media accounts of the think tanks , NGOs or foundations leave? Do they post on a regular basis? Is the content regularly liked or shared by followers?
What reputation do the think tanks, NGOs or foundations have? Do they lean towards one side of the political spectrum? Are they affiliated with political parties or stakeholders like business associations? How are they funded?
Might a possible collaboration with think tanks, NGOs, or foundations damage your scientific reputation?

Guiding questions for researchers or research managers when discussing possible collaboration with think tanks or NGOs:

What is the goal of the collaboration? Do you want to achieve policy change? Do you want to increase your visibility among policymakers? Do you want to conduct research in collaboration with the think tanks, NGO or foundation?
Do the think tanks, NGOs, or foundations publish joint publications or guest contributions at all? Do they organise events in collaboration with other organisations?
Does the collaboration involve sharing of costs (e.g., event catering, rent, printing costs)? Which costs have to be covered? What is your budget?
How do the think tanks, NGOs, or foundations decide which publications to publish or events to organise? are the criteria for deciding on publications or joint events? Who decides on the structure, layout, and dates of the publications? Who decides on the guestlist for events?
Does a cooperation agreement have to be signed? Is there an official policy regarding the display of logos and institutional affiliation?

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

Scientists

It can be challenging for scientists to understand the differences between academic publications and events, and policy-oriented publications, such as policy briefs. While sections on methods or theoretical debates are very important in academic debates, think tanks and NGOs stress the applicability of research findings and recommendations for policymakers. Also, while research projects are conducted over years at universities, think tanks, NGOs, or foundations usually factor in current policy debates when publishing or organising events.

Knowledge exchange officers/ research managers

Research managers can map possible partners among think tanks, NGOs or foundations by assessing the quality, reach and impact of their publications or events. They can sort out legal or organisational issues like the display of logos or the sharing of costs.

Sources and further reading

Please add URL or publications, if applicable.

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

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

Written by Tome Sandevski on June 15, 2026. 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 on June 12, 2026. 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 on June 12, 2026. Posted in Content, Written Formats OV. No Comments 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 on June 12, 2026. 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 on May 20, 2026. 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).