Content - Policy Engagement Toolkit

Pairing Schemes for Groups of Policymakers and Scientists: The example of the SIMIL Programme in Catalonia

Written by Enol Nieto Jiménez. Posted in Dialogue-Oriented Formats OV. No Comments on Pairing Schemes for Groups of Policymakers and Scientists: The example of the SIMIL Programme in Catalonia

Authors:

Ada Domingo Ferrer, Víctor Carbajal Perelló & Enol Nieto Jiménez

Ada Domingo Ferrer holds a Bachelor’s degree in International Relations and Foreign Policy and a Masters in Geopolitics, Territory, and Security. Her main expertise is the analysis of geopolitical factors as a source of conflict in the Middle East and Eastern European regions. At the BETA Technological Centre, she is Governance Senior Technician for Sustainability projects. She is also the project manager of SMART4ENV, an initiative pursuing the excellence for Tübitak Marmara Research Center with respect to R&I capacities and scientific reputation in the field of smart environmental technologies for climate change challenges.

Dr Victor Carbajal Perelló holds a PhD in Applied Sciences, with a specialisation in Environmental Biogeochemistry. He is currently the coordinator of the Governance for Sustainability Unit at BETA Technological Centre. He is mainly involved in initiatives that contribute to increasing BETA TC ‘s impact in the RDI ecosystem, as well as in detecting and implementing new projects together with other stakeholders. In addition, he has participated in different research projects (Spain, Ireland, Portugal, and Ghana) on different topics; water quality, management and conservation of natural resources, governance, agri-food, and bioeconomy.

Enol Nieto Jiménez (enol.nieto@uvic.cat) is a project manager at the Beta Technological Centre of the University of Vic – Central University of Catalonia, where he also works on Governance for Sustainability. He is a jurist and political scientist (Universidad Autónoma of Madrid), an expert in eco-social transition, and holds a MSc in Latin American Studies from the Complutense University of Madrid.

Summary: Key features in a nutshell

Pairing schemes offer a valuable platform for policymakers and scientists to collaborate, fostering a deeper understanding of complex issues and driving evidence-based policymaking. This guide provides a step-by-step framework for organising such initiatives, drawing on the experiences of the SIMIL Programme from the BETA Technological Centre (UVIC-UCC).
The SIMIL Programme Pairing Scheme is a bridge between policymakers and scientists. It was born from the need to promote bidirectional dialogue within the science-policy interface to address the complexities of contemporary environmental challengesin a thorough way. This initiative aims to foster two-way understanding, empowering municipalities, especially the smallest ones and those in rural areas, with the knowledge and tools relevant to their specific context. Policymakers need technical knowledge to keep abreast of innovative solutions, and scientists need to be fully familiar with local realities. At this vital intersection between science and politics, collaboration is not only beneficial but essential. SIMIL facilitates collaborative development of solutions, overcoming traditional barriers, to pave the way for more informed and therefore more effective policymaking.
By fostering collaborative dialogue and knowledge exchange, this programme addresses complex environmental challenges with evidence-based solutions. Through a series of face-to-face sessions and online interactions, policymakers and scientists work together to identify key challenges, explore innovative solutions, and inform policy decisions under a thematic priority common to all participants. This approach leverages the expertise of both sectors to create more effective and sustainable policies that benefit communities and the environment. These sessions are designed to create a dynamic and productive environment where policymakers and scientists can learn from each other, build relationships, and develop innovative solutions to pressing environmental challenges.
The term “SIMIL” refers to replicating and comparing two things while highlighting their commonalities. The methodology aims to serve as a model – one that is replicable and adaptable to different contexts and formats of science-policy dialogue that may be created.

How does the format work?

Figure 1: The SIMIL execution process

To initiate these group pairing schemes between scientists and policymakers, various approaches can be adopted (Fig. 1). The main aim is to share the different activities, phases, and methodologies that have been employed, providing a practical guide for research managers interested in implementing similar initiatives.

By documenting and presenting our strategies, this initiative seeks to offer a valuable resource that highlights effective practices and lessons learned. This guidance will support research managers in designing and facilitating their own collaborative efforts, fostering productive exchanges between the academic and political spheres to address complex public challenges.

Before starting the activities …

Prior to the commencement of the sessions, it is essential to conduct extensive outreach for the programme, engaging key stakeholders who can assist in promoting the initiative. Identifying and leveraging these influential actors will help ensure that the programme reaches its intended audience effectively.

A significant number of participants is crucial, given that the length of such programmes often poses challenges for consistent attendance, particularly among those from the political and administrative sectors. By maximising early participation, the programme can better accommodate potential drop-offs over time while maintaining robust engagement throughout its duration.

It is important to present the programme’s content and main focus areas in clear and accessible language to the policymakers, avoiding overly technical or scientific terms. This approach ensures that the objectives and scope are easily understood by all participants, regardless of their background.

Additionally, providing a detailed schedule with reserved dates for the various planned activities is essential. This helps participants organise their availability and fosters a sense of commitment to the programme’s timeline and goals.

Use registration as an opportunity to gather information necessary for the design of the sessions

A useful idea could be to launch a registration form for participants, including a section that provides preliminary information which can inform the initial sessions. By gathering an overview of the challenges faced by participating policymakers, the programme can be more effectively tailored to address these issues while remaining flexible enough to explore additional topics as they emerge.

This approach allows for the design of a programme that is responsive to the participants’ priorities, providing a foundational roadmap for the first activities. Although the challenges identified in this stage will not be definitive, they will serve as a starting point to guide discussions and foster productive engagement from the outset.

There are different formats for conducting the Pairing Schemes for groups of policymakers and scientists.

Face-to-face sessions

In-person activities will serve as the backbone of the programme, fostering personal connections among participants that will strengthen networks between administrations as well as between policymakers and researchers. These interactions are key to building lasting relationships and facilitating ongoing collaboration.

Types of exercises and activities to be carried out in the in-person sessions:

Individual reflection (5 minutes): Participants reflect on their concerns, issues, and key aspects of the policy challenge they want to address and record their thoughts on a blank sheet of paper. They are free to refer to the support document containing information on the specific challenges in case of blockage.
Group discussion (15 minutes): Participants in each group elect a spokesperson to record the collective ideas. They discuss the questions raised and contribute their thoughts to the DIN A-3 sheet (Fig 2).

A positive experience lived in his municipality

The Door-to-Door collection system has increased the percentage of the RS of all fractions.

A concern/need to express

How can I involve or convince part of the population to develop the Door-to-Door system correctly.

A negative experience

There are 2 neighbourhoods of the municipality where the collection through the Door-to-Door system does not work properly due to the inappropriate behaviour of part of the population.

A proposal for improvement or other comments or observations

– Initiative to give away compostable bins and bags from the town hall.

– Establish bonuses/sanctions.

Figure 2: SIMIL real example of group discussion outputs.

Presentation of group findings (5 minutes per group): Each group will present the items proposed and recorded in the worksheets (Fig 3) in a plenary session. Then, the groups of participants will contrast, confront, and complement the ideas raised. During the reading of the recorded items, each group will see its file projected in order to facilitate the understanding of the ideas and so that the participants from other groups who have not dealt with a certain challenge have the possibility to refute, complement, or comment on any aspect of it.

*Note: check that the tempos for each challenge are respected (flexibility according to the interest of the challenge).

Open discussion (30 minutes): Participants from all groups can discuss, challenge, and complement the ideas presented. With this group session, consensual, and significant results will be generated which will be recorded internally to prepare a document of conclusions that will be delivered to the participants (Fig 4).

Online sessions

At the start of each session, it will be helpful to synthesise the results from the diagnosis phase to reconnect ideas and outcomes from previous discussions on the various challenges. This helps ensure that participants are aligned and focused. Based on these challenges, it’s important to establish strategic lines that guide collaboration.

Encouraging dialogue and co-creation enables identification of key technical resources and solutions necessary for addressing the challenges, which in turn informs future decision making. To streamline communication, consider organising participants into virtual rooms while ensuring a balanced representation of stakeholders, such as politicians, technicians, researchers, and experts.

Throughout the session, it’s beneficial for facilitators to actively support the participants, encouraging them to propose concrete solutions and documenting their contributions. Finally, bringing the groups together at the end allows for actions, resources, and other crucial elements that complement the strategic plans to be shared.

On-site visits

Explore case studies showcasing successful examples of the implementation of innovations and solutions proposed by academia to advance the scientific field. Emphasis will be placed on selecting examples that are relatable and applicable to the scale of the participating administrations, ensuring feasibility and fostering enthusiasm for adopting these changes.

These case studies should demonstrate practical and impactful outcomes, highlighting how academic contributions can address real-world challenges effectively. The focus on approachable and scalable models aims to inspire decision makers to view these solutions as tangible pathways for improvement in their own contexts.

Challenges

To thoroughly explore the challenges that public policies face regarding a specific topic, it is crucial to that to all participating public administrations be heard. This process may span one or more sessions, during which various problems – and often potential solutions –will emerge. A key step is to adopt the role of facilitators or mediators, ensuring that political representatives can freely articulate their issues. This will foster connections among political representatives and help researchers gain a deeper understanding of the political realities underpinning these challenges.

During these sessions, collaborative dynamics can enhance engagement and clarity. Tools such as mapping exercises can visually represent the identified challenges, making them easier to analyse. Group dialogue activities, sharing sessions, and collective problem-mapping discussions can further enrich the process. These methods aim to build a shared understanding of the issues while creating a foundation for collaboration between political representatives and academic researchers.

Tasks and resources

The goal is to share academic resources and knowledge in an accessible format tailored for public representatives, enabling them to gain deeper insights into the specific challenges faced by their administrations. Rather than offering predefined solutions to their issues, the aim is to provide tools and frameworks that empower them to address a broad range of problems effectively.

This approach encourages administrations to adapt the shared knowledge to their unique contexts, fostering a sense of ownership and flexibility in problem solving. By bridging the gap between academic expertise and public administration needs, the initiative seeks to equip decision makers with the capacity to devise informed and context-sensitive strategies.

Final report

This 74-page final report is becoming a valuable tool that represents the culmination of the joint process of dialogue and co-creation between representatives of the local administration and scientists during the first edition of the SIMIL Programme. It reflects the identified challenges, proposed innovative solutions, strategic actions, available technical resources, and possible economic considerations. This guide becomes a valuable tool to facilitate decision making and guide future initiatives in the municipal management of organic waste, thus consolidating the successes achieved during this first edition of the SIMIL Programme.

Key Recommendations

In conclusion, we provide a list of key considerations for those planning to implement a programme of this nature. These points serve as essential guidelines to ensure its success and effectiveness:

Limit the scope: Focus on a manageable number of topics or challenges to ensure in-depth discussions; In our case, the focus was solely on a general topic, from which more limited categories were subsequently derived
Balance expertise: Ensure a diverse mix of policymakers and scientists with complementary skills
Utilize technology: Leverage online platforms for virtual meetings and knowledge sharing
Promote collaboration: Encourage participants to form lasting relationships beyond the pairing scheme
Continuously evaluate: Regularly assess the effectiveness of the programme and make necessary adjustments

Define your objectives
- Clearly outline the goals of your pairing scheme; consider
- Knowledge exchange: Facilitating the transfer of scientific knowledge to policymakers
- Problem solving: Addressing specific challenges related to as specific policy areas
- Policy development: Informing the creation of evidence-based policies
- Network building: Fostering connections between policymakers and scientists
Identify Participants
- Target policymakers: Municipal, supra-municipal, regional, or even national government authorities
- Select scientists: Researchers with expertise relevant to your chosen policy areas
- Consider diversity: Ensure a mix of backgrounds, perspectives, and experiences
- Develop a roadmap
- Create a detailed plan outlining the activities, timelines, and deliverables of your pairing scheme. include:
- Participant recruitment: Processes for attracting and selecting participants
- Topic selection: Identify key policy areas or challenges to focus on
- Meeting formats: Determine the structure and frequency of interactions (e.g., workshops, site visits, online discussions)
- Evaluation: Plan mechanisms to assess the effectiveness of the scheme
Design work sessions
- Facilitate engagement: Employ interactive methods like group discussions, case studies, and roleplaying
- Provide support materials: Distribute relevant research papers, policy briefs, and other resources
- Encourage dialogue: Create a safe and inclusive space for open communication and debate
Organise site visits
- Select relevant locations: Visit successful waste management projects, research facilities, or policymaking institutions
- Facilitate learning: Guide participants through the site, asking questions and encouraging discussion
- Promote networking: Foster connections among participants during the visit
Collect feedback
- Use surveys or interviews: Gather feedback from participants on the effectiveness of the pairing scheme
- Analyse results: Identify areas for improvement and adjust future iterations
Disseminate outcomes
- Publish reports: Share findings and recommendations with policymakers, researchers, and the public
- Organise events: Host workshops or conferences to discuss the results and promote collaboration

Required resources at a glance

From Cartoons to Conversation: Using Visual Stories to Teach Science–Policy Competencies

Written by Jialin Zhang. Posted in Content, Teaching and Learning Methods OV. No Comments on From Cartoons to Conversation: Using Visual Stories to Teach Science–Policy Competencies

Key features in a nutshell

Cartoons turn abstract science–policy competencies and soft skills into recognisable situations from science–policy practice.
They make visible and discussable not only challenges, but also the different realities, underlying assumptions and dynamics that shape how people perceive and respond to them.
Cartoons can be used in many ways: to introduce a topic, prompt reflection, start a group discussion, connect experiences to competencies, or inspire participants to create their own visual stories.
No artistic experience is needed. The aim is not to interpret a cartoon “correctly”, but to use it as a starting point for reflection and exchange.

How does the format work?

Dialogues at the science–policy interface can go off the rails for reasons that are easy to overlook: trust was never built, evidence arrived at the wrong moment, people were talking past each other, power dynamics remained unnamed, or researchers had not reflected on the role they were playing.

Competency frameworks can help us describe what is needed in these situations. But descriptions such as relational competency, reflexivity or navigating complexity remain fairly abstract until we can connect them to situations people recognise from their own work.

How do we iden

tify these situations and find out that might share the same experience to exchange about? Our answer is visual storytelling.

Together with cartoonist Christof Stückelberger, we translated science–policy competencies and soft skills into a series of cartoons. Each cartoon brings an aspect of science–policy engagement to life through a recognisable scene. Some are about complexity and uncertainty. Others deal with finding the right moment for engagement, tailoring communication to different audiences, building trust, recognising power asymmetries or reflecting on one’s own role.

The humour matters, but the cartoons are more than illustrations or entertaining additions to a presentation. They give people something concrete to look at, react to and talk about.

Instead of beginning with a definition such as “What does reflexive competency mean?”, a facilitator can simply show a cartoon and ask:

What is happening here? Or can you relate to this?

That small shift makes a difference. Participants can first talk about the characters rather than themselves. They can disagree about what they see, notice different details and compare interpretations. Recognition often follows: “I have been in this situation.” From there, the conversation can move naturally towards their own experiences.

The cartoons can therefore be used at different stages of teaching and learning. The cartoons can be used with a single image in a ten-minute discussion or ice-breaker, or as part of a longer course or workshop.

Explore and recognise

Show one cartoon or display several around the room. Ask participants which scene feels familiar, surprising or relevant to their work.

Simple questions are often enough:

What do you see?
What seems to be happening?
What is the difficult part of this situation?
Have you experienced something similar?

At this stage, there is no need to explain the competency behind the cartoon. Let people interpret it first.

Discuss and connect

Once participants have explored the situation, the discussion can move towards the competencies or soft skills involved.

Questions might include:

Which science–policy challenge does this cartoon surface?
Which competencies (in your own words or based on a competencies framework) matter here?
Why might the different actors see the situation differently?
What could have been done differently?
What would make this situation easier to navigate?

A simple structure such as: Challenge → Competency → Possible strategy, can help participants move from recognising a problem to thinking about what might help.

The important point is not to match each cartoon with one “correct” competency or soft skill. Science–policy situations are usually messier than that. A communication problem may also involve trust. A question of timing may also reflect institutional incentives. An apparent disagreement over evidence may

hide different values, roles or understandings of the problem.

Reflect on experience

Cartoons can also provide a low-threshold way to open conversations about experiences that participants might otherwise hesitate to discuss.

A cartoon about power, for example, allows a group to talk about the power relationship shown in the picture before asking whether similar situations occur in their own projects or organisations. A cartoon about failed communication can prompt people to explore why apparently clear messages are understood differently by scientists, policymakers and practitioners.

Humour can lower defences; recognition does the rest.

Reimagine the situation

Participants can go one step further and ask what is missing from the cartoon collection.

What science–policy challenge have they experienced that is not yet represented?

They can sketch their own scene using stick figures, speech bubbles or simple symbols. No artistic skill is required. The useful part is the conversation involved in deciding what to draw:

What exactly is the challenge? Whose perspective should be shown? What is difficult to make visible? What competency or soft skill might help?

Creating a new cartoon can therefore turn participants from viewers into interpreters and creators of their own science–policy experiences.

Possible challenges and how to address them

One temptation is to explain

a cartoon immediately. This can quickly turn the exercise into a test: “Which competency does this cartoon represent?”

Try the opposite. Let participants look, interpret and discuss before providing the background. Different readings are not a problem; they are part of the exercise.

It is also useful to avoid reducing every challenge to an individual skill deficit. Science–policy engagement takes place within institutions and political contexts. A researcher may understand perfectly well how to communicate with policymakers but still face a closed policy window, organisational incentives that discourage engagement, or unequal power relations.

Tasks and resources

For scientists: Look for connections between the cartoons and situations from your own work. Be prepared to compare your interpretation with those of people working in other roles.
For knowledge exchange officers / research managers: Select cartoons that fit your audience and learning goals. Use them as conversation starters rather than illustrations that need to be explained. Printed cartoons, sticky notes and a few guiding questions are usually enough.
For policymakers: Bring the policy perspective into the discussion. The same situation may look very different depending on institutional responsibilities, timing, political feasibility and evidence needs.

References

Last, L., Piessens-Siegrist, M., Zhang, J., Stückelberger, C., & Hoffmann, S. (in press). Cosmovisions in dialogue: Visualizing competencies at the science–policy interface. In E. E. Tibet, S. Keller, C. Mutiyamana, & E. Cledat (Eds.), Cosmovisions Arts.

Dettwiler, D., Salomon, H., Piessens-Siegrist, M. et al. (2025), Building capacity at the science–policy interface: a competencies framework. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-06403-5

Cartoon credit- Competencies at the Science–Policy Interface:

© Eawag, WFSC & PSC. Jialin Zhang, Sabine Hoffmann, Luisa Last & Monika Piessens-Siegrist; cartoons by Christof Stückelberger. CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.https://www.eawag.ch/de/abteilung/ess/publikationen/cartoons-kompetenzen-an-der-schnittstelle-zwischen-wissenschaft-und-politik/

Cartoon credit- Soft Skills at the Science–Policy Interface:
Soft skills at the Science–Policy Interface (2026), Sabine Hoffmann, Janik Mutter, Mialy Rann, Martijn Sonnevelt, Lene Topp, Luisa Last & Christof Stückelberger; Illustration: Christof Stückelberger; Eawag; CC BY-NC 4.0.

Incentives for Researchers to Engage in Policy Dialogue: The Impronta Granada Awards

Written by medialab. Posted in Content. No Comments on Incentives for Researchers to Engage in Policy Dialogue: The Impronta Granada Awards

Esteban Romero and David Corado

Esteban Romero-Frías (erf@ugr.es) currently works as Vice-Rector for Social Innovation, Employability and Entrepreneurship at the University of Granada and Full Professor in the Department of Accountancy and Finance. His academic and research work focuses on public and social innovation, digital learning, and digital humanities. Through UGR MediaLab, which he has directed since its foundation, he has led various collaborative projects such as Impronta Granada and UnInPública, aimed at building bridges between universities, public institutions, and society to tackle regional challenges.

David Corado (davidcorado@go.ugr.es) is a conference interpreter, translator, and predoctoral researcher in the Languages, Texts and Contexts programme at the University of Granada. Trained at institutions such as the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona and the Universitat Jaume I, he holds an FPU UGR–Santander research contract and is a member of Medialab UGR, where he takes part in projects such as ENGAGEgreen and #YoSigoUGR. He currently combines his teaching and research work with professional conference interpreting, collaborating on a voluntary basis with organisations, associations and non-profit entities. He has participated in academic projects, conferences and publications related to interpreting and communicative competences.

Summary: Key features in a nutshell

Goal: align the University of Granada research with territorial needs and urban and local policy agendas.
Governance: issued and coordinated by the University of Granada (Impronta Granada & Medialab UGR) in institutional partnership with the Provincial Council of Granada.
Who can apply: members (or former members) of the University of Granada who since 2000 presented a Bachelor’s thesis, Master’s thesis, PhD thesis, or published a scientific article.
What is valued: transferability to local challenges; impact, alignment with urban agenda, methodological innovation, academic quality, viability/sustainability.
Incentive design: monetary awards and prime policy exposure—a 2-minute presentation at the Impronta Granada Meeting to the largest audience of regional mayors and provincial policymakers.
Strategic benefit: the awards act as a bridge between university knowledge and municipal needs; they normalise policy-relevant research across all academic stages.

Description

This contribution explains how Impronta Granada, an institutional alliance between the University of Granada and the Provincial Council of Granada, incentivises policy-oriented research through the Impronta Granada Awards.

The awards recognise research that can be translated into territorial transformation projects addressing social, economic and environmental challenges in the province of Granada.

Importantly, the awards are not limited to senior researchers. They include Bachelor’s theses, Master’s theses, PhD theses and scientific articles, fostering early-stage policy awareness in students as well as consolidated academics.

Crucially, awardees present their work at the Encuentro Impronta Granada, the flagship event where UGR’s county-level Living Labs (UGR County Councils) are constituted and followed up, and where mayors and municipal policymakers are most present—creating a high-visibility gateway for research-to-policy dialogue.

How does the format work?

1 – Call & eligibility

Open to anyone in the University of Granada community (current or past) who has, since 2000, produced a dissertation, master’s thesis, a PhD thesis, or a scientific article.

The call is issued annually by the University of Granada through Impronta Granada and Medialab UGR, in institutional coordination with the Provincial Council of Granada (Diputación de Granada).

The Awards are part of the broader Impronta Granada strategy to connect university knowledge with territorial governance. While researchers and students are the main applicants, the initiative is conceived as a territorial knowledge activation mechanism, not solely as an academic award.

The first edition of the Awards was launched in 2024. The year 2000 was selected as the eligibility threshold to ensure:

A sufficiently broad repository of research outputs.
Inclusion of high-quality works produced before systematic digital archiving became standard.
Recovery and valorisation of potentially underused academic knowledge.

This long temporal scope reflects the idea that valuable territorial knowledge may already exist within the university but remains untapped.

2 – Submission package

- Link to the full research work in a repository or external file.
- A project document (max. 10 pages) describing the territorial transformation derived from that research: cover page, executive summary, brief of the original work, relevance to provincial challenges, detailed proposal (objectives, resources, territory, actors/alliances, timeline), and impact (expected results, sustainability, indicators).

* Territorial transformation refers to the capacity of research results to inform, inspire or structure interventions addressing concrete challenges within the province of Granada.

It does not require immediate implementation. Instead, applicants must reinterpret their research into a structured proposal that:

Identifies a specific territorial challenge (e.g., environmental, social, cultural, economic).
Defines potential actors and partnerships.
Outlines objectives, resources, timeline and indicators.

The goal is to translate academic knowledge into a feasible governance-oriented framework that could be piloted or considered by local institutions.

3 – Where to apply

- The internal university application manager: complete form + attach the project document (Word/OpenDocument/Google Drive).

4 – Evaluation criteria & award committee

Submissions are evaluated by a joint award committee composed of representatives from:

The University of Granada (academic leadership and knowledge exchange representatives)
The Provincial Council of Granada (Diputación de Granada). The presence of the Provincial Council ensures policy relevance in the assessment process.

Transfer-oriented scoring emphasising:

Territorial impact (up to 4 points)
Alignment with the urban agenda of Granada (up to 3) – This refers not only to the city of Granada but to broader provincial and regional development frameworks aligned with sustainability, cohesion and innovation principles. While not all researchers are initially familiar with these policy agendas, the call documentation explicitly explains the relevant strategic priorities to guide applicants.
Methodological innovation (up to 3)
Academic quality (up to 3)
Viability & sustainability (up to 3)

5. Awards & ceremony

Prize pool: €8,000 across four modalities:

* Bachelor’s thesis: 4 × €500

* Master’s thesis: 2 × €1,000

* PhD thesis: 1 × €2,000

* Scientific article: 1 × €2,000

Obligation of awardees: present publicly at the Impronta Granada Meeting in front of institutional representatives, the research community and territorial stakeholders.

Challenges

Ensuring projects are genuinely implementable in diverse municipal contexts (urban/rural, varying capacities). However, the awards do not require projects to be implemented. Neither researchers nor policymakers are obligated to execute proposals. The objective is to encourage research designed with territorial relevance in mind and to create opportunities for dialogue that may, but do not necessarily, lead to implementation.
Balancing academic excellence with practical transferability and alignment to the urban agenda priorities.
Securing consistent repository access and complete documentation for older research (since 2000).
Managing high demand for visibility at the Impronta Granada Meeting within limited on-stage time (2-minute pitch).

Tasks and resources

Scientists

Identify territorial relevance and formulate a concise, implementable 10-page project derived from existing research.
Prepare a clear 2-minute pitch for policymakers at the Encuentro.
Define indicators and a feasible timeline for local deployment.

Knowledge exchange managers and research managers

Operate the call, application guidance, and workflows.
Coordinate the jury, ceremony logistics, and the Impronta Granada Meeting programme.
Facilitate visibility across the University of Granada channels and matchmaking with municipalities.

Policymakers

Policymakers do not unilaterally decide on the awards; however, representatives of the Provincial Council of Granada are part of the evaluation committee.
Attend the Impronta Granada Meeting; listen to pitches that map onto local needs.
Initiate follow-up conversations for piloting, co-funding, or integrating proposals into local agendas.

1st Edition – Impronta Granada Awards (2024)

Call Launch: https://improntagranada.es/impronta/se-convocan-los-premios-ugr-diputacion-impronta-granada-para-tfgs-tfms-y-tesis-con-propuestas-de-impacto-para-la-provincia/
Final Resolution / List of Awardees: https://improntagranada.es/impronta/el-consejo-de-gobierno-de-la-universidad-de-granada-aprueba-la-resolucion-de-los-premios-impronta-granada-2024/
Award Ceremony (1st Impronta Granada Meeting): https://improntagranada.es/consejos-comarcales-ugr/i-encuentro-impronta-granada-reune-a-representantes-de-todas-las-comarcas-de-granada/

2nd Edition – Impronta Granada Awards (2025)

Call Launch: https://improntagranada.es/impronta/la-universidad-de-granada-lanza-la-ii-edicion-de-los-premios-impronta-granada-para-impulsar-la-investigacion-con-impacto-territorial/
Final Resolution / List of Awardees: https://improntagranada.es/impronta/acuerdo-definitivo-de-la-ii-edicion-de-los-premios-impronta-granada/
Award Ceremony (2nd Impronta Granada Meeting – Loja): https://improntagranada.es/impronta/el-ii-encuentro-impronta-granada-refuerza-en-loja-la-alianza-entre-universidad-y-territorio/

Empowering Municipal Leadership: Engaging Mayors in Cultural and Territorial Development through the New European Bauhaus

Written by medialab. Posted in Content. No Comments on Empowering Municipal Leadership: Engaging Mayors in Cultural and Territorial Development through the New European Bauhaus

Esteban Romero and David Corado

Summary: Key features in a nutshell

Central role of municipal leadership in defining and showcasing cultural innovation across rural and urban areas.
Introduction to the New European Bauhaus (NEB) funding framework as a tool for sustainable local development.
Presence of national and European experts to train and inspire policymakers.
Collaborative ecosystem linking mayors, cultural agents, researchers, and citizens.
Integration of the event into the broader Impronta Granada and ENGAGEgreen frameworks for territorial innovation.

Description

This contribution documents the Impronta Granada Conference on Culture and Territory, held on 20 March 2025 at the University of Granada’s Breaker Space (V Centenario building). The event exemplifies how UGR provides a privileged platform for mayors and municipal representatives to present their local projects, gain visibility, and receive direct guidance on European funding opportunities such as those of the New European Bauhaus (NEB).

By placing municipalities at the centre of the dialogue between culture, territory, and innovation, the University of Granada fosters a governance model based on shared responsibility and mutual learning between academia and local administrations.

How does the format work?

The Impronta Granada Conference: “Culture and Territory” was conceived as a participatory policy dialogue space designed to:

Strengthen the visibility of municipalities as cultural and social innovation actors.
Provide capacity-building opportunities for local authorities to access EU programmes such as the NEB.
Promote mutual learning between policymakers, academic experts, and cultural professionals.

The event was organised by Medialab UGR, under the Vice-Rectorate for Social Innovation, Employability and Entrepreneurship, and brought together over 60 participants, including mayors, councillors, cultural officers, researchers, and civil-society organisations.

The structure of the day reflected the three pillars of the New European Bauhaus — sustainability, inclusion, and beauty — and was divided into complementary segments combining training, inspiration, and peer exchange.

Why did it attract local policymakers?

Presentation of the New European Bauhaus initiative by Laura Hagermann, Policy Officer at the European Commission, highlighting opportunities for municipalities to apply for NEB funding.
Panel of mayors and cultural officers representing municipalities such as Purullena, Galera, Santa Fe, Alpujarra de la Sierra, Guadix, and Dúdar, who shared local experiences in decentralised cultural programming, heritage revitalisation and citizen participation.
Keynote by Federico Buyolo, Director of Culture at the Ortega-Marañón Foundation, discussing “Culture and Territory: Development and Citizenship in Rural Areas” and emphasising collective intelligence as the basis for sustainable development.
Networking session and policy roundtable, enabling local representatives to connect with university researchers and EU programme officers for project ideation and collaboration.

Challenges

Ensuring continuity beyond the one-day conference through follow-up actions.
Translating theoretical discussions (NEB principles) into actionable funding proposals.
Balancing participation between urban and rural municipalities with uneven resources.
Adapting European frameworks to the cultural and socio-economic context of small towns.

Tasks and resources

Scientists

Presented and contextualised NEB principles for local adaptation.
Supported municipalities in identifying project ideas aligned with EU frameworks.
Collected and synthesised examples of culture-driven territorial innovation.

Knowledge exchange managers and research managers

Coordinated event logistics, registration, and communication.
Facilitated connections between local governments and funding opportunities.
Produced press releases and audiovisual documentation to ensure dissemination.

Policymakers

Participated as speakers and presenters, sharing municipal cultural projects.
Engaged in dialogue with European Commission representatives and national experts.
Explored opportunities to integrate NEB principles into local development strategies.

Case studies

Impronta Granada Conference: “Culture and Territory” (Granada, Spain, 20 March 2025)
The event positioned mayors and cultural officers as primary agents of change. Each municipality had the opportunity to present its own cultural initiatives and challenges, reinforcing the visibility of local government action within a European framework.

Through the introduction of the New European Bauhaus, the University of Granada enabled direct knowledge transfer on EU funding schemes, linking local innovation to continental policy priorities.

The participation of high-level experts and the presence of European Commission representatives elevated the dialogue, turning the conference into a capacity-building milestone for municipal leadership in the province.

How is format conducted

The format combines formal presentations and participatory dialogues.

Introductory session led by the Vice-Rectorate to contextualise Impronta Granada.
Expert training segment introducing NEB principles and funding mechanisms.
Municipal showcase where mayors present their ongoing or planned projects.
Inspirational keynote by a national expert to foster reflection on culture and citizenship.
Networking and informal exchange, promoting cooperation between municipalities and academic staff.

All sessions were held in-person at the University of Granada’s Breaker Space, with open registration and free participation.

Available resources (what are the main tasks)

Event recordings, press releases, and photographic documentation.
NEB funding guidelines distributed among attendees.
Contact database of municipalities and cultural officers.
Collaboration templates for joint project proposals (UGR–municipalities).
Visibility through Medialab UGR, Impronta Granada, and institutional communication channels.

What works? What doesn’t? (Lessons learnt)

Works:

Giving mayors a visible and vocal role creates strong engagement and legitimacy.
Introducing European frameworks (NEB) empowers local leaders with practical knowledge.
Involving national and EU-level experts strengthens credibility and institutional learning.
Holding events at the university symbolises openness and institutional support.

Doesn’t:

One-off sessions without follow-up limit continuity.
Overly technical explanations may discourage smaller municipalities.

Lessons learnt:

Combine expert presentations with local storytelling for better understanding.
Provide written guides on funding schemes.
Include time for informal dialogue between policymakers and researchers to spark collaboration.

How do you evaluate the activities?

Outputs:

1 major event with 60+ participants (mayors, cultural officers, researchers).
6 municipalities showcased cultural initiatives.
Training session on NEB principles and funding opportunities.
Press and media coverage across university and local outlets.

Outcomes:

Increased awareness of EU funding among local governments.
Strengthened cooperation between municipalities and the University of Granada.
Creation of a provincial network of cultural policymakers committed to sustainable development.

Indicators:

Number of municipalities represented.
Participant satisfaction and follow-up contacts.
Number of municipalities preparing NEB-inspired proposals.

From local concern to policy dialogue: A case study on sustainable pest control through academic and municipal collaboration

Written by medialab. Posted in Content. No Comments on From local concern to policy dialogue: A case study on sustainable pest control through academic and municipal collaboration

Summary: Key features in a nutshell

Originated from an academic participant’s observation of a local problem (pest outbreaks affecting agriculture).
Mobilized the quadruple helix model (academia, policymakers, private sector, civil society).
Resulted in a hybrid seminar/webinar on sustainable pest control, led by a UGR biotechnology expert.
Emphasized biotechnological alternatives to chemical insecticides, with scientific insights and practical solutions.
Included open debate and networking, fostering a replicable model for other territories.

Description

This case study showcases how a localized agricultural problem — a pest outbreak in the Vega de Granada area — evolved into a multi-stakeholder science-policy dialogue, coordinated under the Erasmus+ ENGAGEgreen framework through the University of Granada’s County Councils initiative. This process demonstrates the potential of the Living Lab methodology and quadruple helix collaboration in transforming grassroots concerns into informed public policy actions, fostering sustainable solutions through academic expertise and political engagement.

How does the format work?

The initiative began with the concern raised by a University of Granada academic, a nursing lecturer and participant in the Metropolitan Area County Council. Though pest control was not her field, she noticed a significant caterpillar infestation affecting local crops in Huétor Vega, her place of residence. She brought this issue to the attention of the County Council and, through the coordination team at the University of Granada’s Vice-Rectorate for Social Innovation, received direct contact information for local policymakers.

With the support of Huétor Vega’s mayor and local councillors, and the involvement of the University of Granada coordination team, a collaborative strategy was launched. The academic participant’s concern was matched with the expertise of Susana Vílchez Tornero, a Full Professor of Biotechnology and Director of the Biotechnology Institute of the University of Granada.

The coordination team proposed a public awareness seminar on sustainable pest control. The event was held in a hybrid format, allowing both in-person attendance (for networking and knowledge exchange) and virtual participation via live webinar. The seminar recording was made available online to ensure wider dissemination and long-term accessibility.

Challenges

Mobilizing a cross-disciplinary response to a highly localized and technical issue.
Aligning institutional logistics across academic, municipal, and technical domains in a short timeframe.
Ensuring accessible communication to non-specialist audiences, while maintaining scientific rigour.
Bridging the gap between academic knowledge and practical policymaking.

Tasks and resources

Scientists

Identified and mobilized expertise in biotechnology and pest control.
Delivered scientific content during the seminar.
Provided practical, environmentally responsible alternatives to traditional pest control methods.
Participated in a post-seminar debate to clarify technical issues for other stakeholders.

Knowledge exchange managers and research managers

Coordinated stakeholder engagement and event logistics.
Ensured hybrid technical setup and post-event dissemination.
Facilitated connections between academia and public institutions.

Policymakers

Supported the initiative logistically and politically.
Participated in the event and discussion sessions.
Helped promote the seminar locally to reach agricultural communities and interest groups.

Examples

Seminar title: “Sustainable Alternatives for Pest Control in Agriculture”
Event venue: La Sinsombrero, Edificio V Centenario, University of Granada
Format: Hybrid (on-site + live webinar)
Total participants: 40+, including academics, local policymakers, technical staff, and citizens.

Sources and further reading

County Councils microsite: https://improntagranada.es/consejoscomarcalesugr/

Case studies

How is format conducted

Triggered by grassroots concern.
Coordination between academia and local government.
Expert-led seminar (scientific input).
Debate and open discussion among quadruple helix stakeholders.
Recorded and disseminated for broader access.

Available resources (what are the main tasks)

Coordination of event logistics and hybrid platform.
Preparation of content and visual aids.
Internal and external promotion of the event.
Facilitation of stakeholder dialogue.

What works? What doesn`t? (Lessons learnt)

What works:

Starting from a local concern makes the initiative highly relevant and participatory.
Word-of-mouth and territorial networks are powerful for mobilising stakeholders.
Hybrid formats enhance participation and long-term visibility.
Scientific expertise can be activated quickly if institutional coordination is fluid.

What doesn’t:

Highly technical content may need extra effort to be accessible to non-experts. This can be addressed by simplifying scientific or administrative terminology without losing accuracy, incorporating infographics, diagrams or short videos instead of purely technical presentations, and showcasing real-world cases or on-site demonstrations.
Rural actors may need additional support to access online formats.

How do you evaluate the activities?

Participant feedback after the seminar.
Level of representation across the quadruple helix.
Number of views/downloads of the recording.
Initiatives launched or explored after the event (e.g., follow-up actions in Huétor Vega).

How to recruit participants to establish a territorial dialogue model for science-policy cooperation

Written by Esteban Romero-Frías. Posted in Actors & Institutions cs - english, Content. No Comments on How to recruit participants to establish a territorial dialogue model for science-policy cooperation

Authors: Esteban Romero and David Corado

Summary: Key features in a nutshell

Multi-phase recruitment strategy rooted in a Living Lab co-creation methodology.
Stepwise stakeholder engagement: starting with university personnel (academia), expanding to policymakers, and later involving the private sector and civil society.
Use of internal distribution lists, websites, word-of-mouth networks and local media outreach.
Anchored in territorial identity and thematic interest.
Progressive scaling from academic volunteers to a fully-fledged science-policy dialogue platform across 10 County Councils.

Description

This contribution presents the recruitment strategy used by the University of Granada (UGR) to establish the UGR County Councils. This is a territorial dialogue model that connects academia, policymakers, private sector actors and citizens under a Living Lab framework. The chapter outlines a step-by-step approach to attract participants from each stakeholder group, following the quadruple helix model, and to build a co-creation ecosystem aimed at fostering science-policy collaboration.

Recruiting participants is a foundational step in any science-policy dialogue initiative, especially when the model is grounded in the Living Lab methodology and the quadruple helix model. A Living Lab is an open and collaborative innovation ecosystem, where stakeholders from different sectors co-create solutions in real-life contexts. In this case, the UGR County Council Living Lab is applied to the territorial scale, where dialogue and experimentation take place within the everyday social and institutional fabric of Granada’s counties. The quadruple helix model brings together four key stakeholder groups: academia, policymakers, the private sector and civil society. Each helix contributes distinct knowledge, resources and perspectives that are essential to tackling complex territorial challenges related to sustainability, development and the creation of public policies.

Recruiting representatives from each helix is not only a logistical task, but a strategic imperative: it ensures the plurality of voices, territorial embeddedness and relevance of the co-created solutions. Without a carefully designed and phased recruitment process, the pairing scheme would lack diversity, legitimacy and real-world impact. In the case of the UGR County Councils, the stepwise recruitment of university teaching, research and technical staff laid the groundwork for trust, internal capacity and knowledge mobilisation. This was followed by targeted engagement with policymakers, which enabled meaningful pairing dynamics and eventually opened the ecosystem to business and citizenship. This inclusive, ecosystemic structure is what transforms a typical consultation exercise into a territorial innovation lab with long-term policy influence.

How does the format work?

The recruitment process was structured in following phases:

Engaging the academic community (July–September 2024):
- Medialab UGR, the Social Innovation Lab of the University of Granada, launched an internal call for expressions of interest to teaching and research staff and technical-administrative staff of the University of Granada.
- Dissemination channels included the University of Granada internal mailing lists and the university’s official websites and media platforms.
- The invitation encouraged staff to connect based on territorial ties (origin, residence, or ongoing projects in a county).
Building awareness and understanding (December 2024):
- A virtual training and orientation session was held with 46 initial participants, clarifying objectives, methodologies (Living Labs) and structure of the UGR County Councils.
- Participants were invited to co-create entries in the project’s microsite and begin identifying local challenges.
- An essential and often underestimated element in this recruitment process was the role of word-of-mouth communication. After the first internal training session with academic and technical staff, many participants organically became ambassadors of the initiative, spreading the concept of the UGR County Councils to their personal and professional contacts in local administrations. This informal, trust-based communication proved particularly effective in reaching mayors, councillors, and other local policymakers, especially in areas where institutional or digital outreach may not have been sufficient. The personal credibility of university staff played a key role in generating interest, securing early policy engagement and laying the foundations for stronger science-policy connections.
Activating the second helix – policymakers (December 2024–January 2025):
- Thanks to the networks and outreach capacity of the academic participants, local political institutions (municipalities’ councils, the county associations of municipalities, the Provincial Council of Granada and rural development groups) were approached.
- Policymakers’ contacts from previous University of Granada’s collaborations were leveraged to initiate this participation.
Science-policy dialogue kick-off event (20 January 2025):
- The First Impronta Granada Meeting served as a public milestone where:
  - University of Granada representatives presented local challenges and ongoing university projects within the counties of the Granada province.
  - Policymakers responded and engaged in a debate originated by the presentation of the University of Granada representatives.
  - Private sector and civil society stakeholders also attended through open calls and media promotion.
Open call to the wider community: the 2 remaining helixes (February 2025):
- Following the event, a new public call was issued to further involve citizens and business entities.
- Channels included social media, local press, public webinars and community outreach activities.

Challenges

Ensuring initial motivation and time commitment from university staff.
Creating balanced representation across diverse disciplines and territories.
Maintaining momentum between phases (academic engagement → policy dialogue → community outreach).
Overcoming digital access barriers in rural areas.
Translating expressions of interest into sustained, active involvement.
Digital-only recruitment limits inclusion in certain rural areas.
Scheduling conflicts for active professionals require flexible formats.

Tasks and resources

From a methodological viewpoint, the participant intake form was a crucial tool to structure, formalise and personalise the recruitment process. Designed to gather not only contact details but also qualitative information on participants’ territorial connections, motivations and project involvement, the form allowed a more meaningful and strategic matching of participants to the corresponding county councils. It helped ensure diversity in terms of roles (academia, public sector, private sector, citizenship), territorial relevance (attachment to one of the ten counties within the province of Granada) and thematic interest. Moreover, it facilitated initial mapping of expertise, needs and local engagement capacity . All this is essential for fostering authentic co-creation processes within the Living Lab framework. The form also reflected data protection compliance and transparent data handling, reinforcing trust and institutional professionalism throughout the recruitment phase.

Scientists

Volunteered through an internal recruitment campaign.
Identified local needs based on their territorial link.
Acted as knowledge brokers in the councils.
Presented ongoing University of Granada projects at the science-policy dialogue event.

Knowledge exchange managers and research managers

Facilitated internal coordination and onboarding.
Developed communication and engagement strategies.
Managed documentation and feedback processes.
Structured follow-up communications.

Policymakers

Contributed to agenda setting and identification of local priorities.
Discussed the current needs of their municipalities and counties in line with what researchers and technicians presented.
Participated in co-creation of initiatives.
Integrated council outcomes into municipal/regional policy agendas.

Bringing Policymakers into the Lab: Lessons from the Practice Day ‘Future Technologies for Energy and Security’ at TU Darmstadt

Written by Michèle Knodt. Posted in Content, Dialogue-Oriented Formats CS. No Comments on Bringing Policymakers into the Lab: Lessons from the Practice Day ‘Future Technologies for Energy and Security’ at TU Darmstadt

Key features in a nutshell

A full-day “Practice Day” (Praxistag) combining laboratory tours, live demonstrator presentations, and structured networking across different university locations.
The “Practice Day” (Praxistag in German) at TU Darmstadt brought together about 30 representatives from policymaking institutions, NGOs, associations, and businesses with 10 researchers from various academic disciplines.
The guests from practice organisations toured the labs of the Metal Energy Hub, the Smart Homes EHub and the Digital Resilience Xchange (DiReX) Centre at TU Darmstadt. The practioners were acquainted with state-of-the-art research while the researchers learned about policy questions.
Delegating event management and targeted participant outreach to dedicated research managers and knowledge exchange officers drastically reduces researchers’ administrative workload and maximises event impact.

How did the format work?

Step 1: Conceptualisation

The Policy Engagement Unit at Goethe University Frankfurt—which coordinates the Erasmus+ project ENGAGEgreen and the Mercator Science-Policy Fellowship Programme of the Rhine-Main Universities (TU Darmstadt, Goethe University Frankfurt, and Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz)—approached researchers at the Metal Energy Hub and the Digital Resilience Xchange (DiReX) centre to explore interest in a policy-oriented event.

A joint team of five researchers, research managers, and knowledge exchange officers co-designed the event and scheduled it for 29 January 2026.

Core Aims of the Event:

Provide an applied overview of cutting-edge research on renewable energy storage and digital resilience during emergency and crisis situations in Germany.
Connect researchers from TU Darmstadt directly with regional, national, and local policymakers, as well as stakeholders from industry, NGOs, and public administration.

Step 2: Planning & Targeted Outreach

Researchers and research managers at TU Darmstadt compiled an initial list of 150 key institutional stakeholders. To broaden outreach, the Policy Engagement Unit at Frankfurt reviewed organisational charts across 60+ relevant public sector bodies and identified over 200 tailored contacts.

Invitations: Official invitations were sent out in early December 2025 to approximately 350 policy professionals and stakeholders.
Registration Rates: By mid-January 2026, around 35 external practitioners and 10 researchers and research managers from TU Darmstadt had registered (yielding an effective conversion rate of ~10–12%).
Logistics: Catering was finalised and targeted reminder emails were dispatched two weeks prior to the event.

Step 3: Implementation

The event took place on 29 January 2026.

09:00–09:30 | Registration & Welcome: Assembly at the Metal Energy Hub offices (Campus Lichtwiese, TU Darmstadt).
09:30–11:30 | Lab Tour 1 – Metal Energy Hub: Presentation of research on innovative green technologies (e.g. zero-carbon energy storage via iron powder oxidation and reduction), followed by a guided laboratory tour led by Dr Marius Schmidt.
11:40–12:10 | Lab Tour 3 – Energy-Autonomous Smart Home (eHub): Guided visit by Dr Joachim Schulze, highlighting rapid self-sufficient emergency power setups for photovoltaic system owners.
12:10–12:40 | Group Transfer: Shared commute from Campus Lichtwiese to the City Campus of TU Darmstadt.
12:40–13:30 | Networking Lunch: Joint light lunch at the Application and Transfer Centre Digital Resilience Xchange (DiReX) to maintain group cohesion during the campus transition.
13:30–15:15 | Lab Tour 3 – Digital Resilience Xchange (DiReX): Presentation on resilient digital municipal infrastructure designed for disaster management, including interactive demonstrator tours led by Prof. Dr Michèle Knodt and Prof. Dr Bernd Freisleben.

Step 4: Post-Event Follow-Up

Within one week of the event, the Policy Engagement Unit distributed presentation slides and a comprehensive contact directory of all participating researchers to the external practitioners.

Challenges and how to address them

Overall, the event ran very smoothly, but it’s worth being explicit about why, so other universities can calibrate their own expectations. The researchers, research managers, and knowledge exchange officers involved had already been collaborating for some time through the ENGAGEgreen project and the Mercator Science-Policy Fellowship Programme. This meant established working relationships, shared routines, and mutual trust were already in place before planning even began. Researchers could focus entirely on presenting their findings, while research managers and knowledge exchange officers handled the organisational side.

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

Tasks and resources

Researchers

Prepared accessible, non-academic presentations and core policy pitches.
Set up interactive laboratory setups and physical demonstrators.
Co-developed the thematic scope and suggested relevant expert contacts.

Research managers and knowledge mobilisers

Managed target group identification across 60+ public sector organisational charts.
Handled mailing lists, invitation workflows, catering, and social media coverage.
Coordinated campus transfers and facilitated session moderation.

Policymakers

Represented local, regional, and national ministries, political parties, NGOs, and businesses.
Engaged in active Q&A sessions during lab demonstrations.
Established direct contacts with academic researchers for long-term policy advice.

Pictures

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

Navigating Science-Policy Interactions: An Introduction to the ENGAGEgreen Policy Engagement Toolkit

Written by Tome Sandevski. Posted in Content, Introduction. No Comments on Navigating Science-Policy Interactions: An Introduction to the ENGAGEgreen Policy Engagement Toolkit

What is the ENGAGEgreen Policy Engagement Toolkit?

The ENGAGEgreen Policy Engagement Toolkit offers a comprehensive overview of the diverse formats scientists, research managers, and knowledge mobilisers can leverage to bring academic expertise into policymaking.

While numerous guides already cover traditional practices like writing policy briefs or giving parliamentary evidence, our toolkit fulfils a distinct, broader purpose based on four core motivations:

A Multidimensional Definition: In line with the University of Oxford’s widely used definition, we view policy engagement as an umbrella term describing ‘the many ways researchers and policymakers connect and explore common interests at various stages in their respective research and policymaking processes.’ Engagement extends far beyond policy briefs; it encompasses pairing schemes, policy fellowships, hackathons, and research site visits. Structured, easily accessible overviews of these formats remain rare, especially cross-border examples that transcend regional or national silos.
Addressing Real-World Constraints: Academic policy engagement is often hampered by time constraints, funding limits, and institutional recognition hurdles. While this toolkit cannot eliminate structural barriers, it offers practical decision-making guidance to help users select the right format for their specific capacity, saving valuable time and resources.
An Inclusive Stakeholder Approach: Effective policy engagement relies on strong institutional ecosystems. This toolkit addresses researchers, policymakers, research managers, and knowledge mobilisers alike. Clarifying roles and mutual needs strengthens institutional capacity and support structures.
Bidirectional Knowledge Exchange: While incorporating academic research improves policy quality, engaging with policymakers simultaneously generates fresh, real-world research questions. We explicitly treat policy engagement as a two-way street.

How is the Toolkit Structured?

The toolkit is designed not as a rigid recipe book or a theoretical treatise, but as an adaptable collection of modular chapters. Each chapter delivers:

A concise breakdown of a specific policy engagement format or structure.
Concrete, real-world case studies contributed by scientists, research managers, knowledge mobilizers, or policymakers.

These practical examples illustrate that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to science-policy interaction.

Is Policy Engagement Too Time-Consuming?

Not necessarily. Major commitments—such as drafting a 500-page commissioned report or serving on a multi-year advisory board—are highly time-intensive. However, many agile, lightweight formats exist.

The matrix below illustrates the typical net time investment required for various engagement formats:

Note on Support Structures: Time investment depends heavily on institutional support. A researcher drafting a report or organizing a workshop entirely alone faces a vastly different workload than one supported by professional event managers and knowledge brokers.

Key Features of the Toolkit

Pragmatic, Non-Dogmatic Guidelines: Formats are described based on general practical standards rather than rigid rules. For example, while we define policy briefs as short texts (typically 2–6 pages), longer variants exist in practice.
Focus on Cross-Cutting Skills: Alongside specific formats, the toolkit addresses essential strategic skills: reaching target audiences, timing input effectively according to political cycles, understanding institutional contexts, and evaluating impact.
Reflective Case Studies: Each chapter features real-world examples allowing practitioners to reflect on what worked well, what failed, and what they would adapt in hindsight.
Multilingual & Context-Sensitive: The toolkit is published in English, Czech, French, German, Italian, and Spanish. Content varies slightly across languages to reflect regional policy cultures (e.g., explicit policy recommendations are standard in Anglo-Saxon policy briefs but less common in German-speaking contexts). English versions are released first, followed by translated editions.
Realistic Resource Estimation: Required time is measured in net working hours dedicated to a single iteration of a format (excluding external delays or waiting periods). To maintain relevance across different national spending structures, monetary estimates are deliberately omitted in most cases.

Sources and Further Reading

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

Help Us Expand the Toolkit

This toolkit is a living document based on desk research, practitioner feedback, and practical experience rather than a formal academic study. Because policy engagement cultures vary widely across countries, we actively encourage international contributions.

If a format operates differently in your national context, or if you would like to contribute a case study, we welcome your input!

Get in touch or contribute:

Contact Tome Sandevski at science-policy@pvw.uni-frankfurt.de

The 4-Minute Window: Mastering the High-Impact Policy Pitch

Written by Paulina Conrad. Posted in Content, Teaching and Learning Methods OV. 1 Comment on The 4-Minute Window: Mastering the High-Impact Policy Pitch

Key features in a nutshell

● This exercise asks participants to prepare and deliver a four-minute policy pitch on their own research topic, followed by structured peer feedback

● The exercise is grounded in a central insight: what matters in science–policy communication is not how much researchers know but what policymakers should understand and remember; methods and research design of individual research projects are secondary; overarching key findings and their policy relevance come first.

● Participants leave the exercise with a concrete, tested communication product they can use in future policy engagement activities.

How does the format work?

Researchers are often well-prepared to present their work to academic audiences. Presenting to policymakers requires a fundamentally different approach — one that many researchers have never been explicitly taught. This exercise creates a structured opportunity to practice exactly that, using the participants’ own research topics as the raw material.

The task

Prepare a concise, four-minute presentation on your research topic. Your goal is to communicate the relevance and key aspects of the research topic clearly, compellingly, and accessibly, including, where appropriate, a set of policy options. Make sure you present complex content in an illustrative and practical manner so that non-experts can grasp the significance of your topic. Slides may be used. The target audience is policymakers.

Step by Step guideline for researchers

Step 1: Know your audience

What does your target audience already know? Why is your topic relevant to them — and which specific aspect is most likely to resonate? A topic such as “fish stocks in the North Sea” might be of interest to a ministry of fisheries for economic reasons, to a ministry of tourism for its effects on coastal communities, or to a parliamentary committee for its implications for EU regulation. Tailor your pitch accordingly and ask yourself: Why should policymakers care about this?

Step 2: Establish context and relevance

Formulate two or three key messages and embed your topic in a broader context, linking it to current societal challenges or practical applications.

Ask yourself: What should policymakers remember in six months or a year? Why does this topic matter? Are there current events that connect to your topic? (e.g., “The volcanic eruption in Iceland is a reminder that coastal regions worldwide are at risk.”) It is worth researching recent policy developments in advance or speaking with policymakers beforehand to understand their current priorities.

Connect your findings to a concrete societal or political reality. For example: “A rise in ocean acidification could put 100,000 fishing jobs at risk.” Concrete figures and real-life examples create an emotional connection to the topic and make the practical relevance of scientific findings tangible.

Step 3: Make policy recommendations or discuss policy options

Present possible courses of action. Indicate concrete, implementable steps and, where possible, embed them in the current policy context. Explain why certain measures might be politically feasible or advisable. Enumerate the pros and cons of various policy actions.

Step 4: Check your presentation for clear structure, academic jargon, the effective use of visualization and energy

● Structure. Use a clear, informative title that signals the relevance of the topic (e.g., “The Effects of Climate Change on Coastlines: Why Action Is Needed”); an engaging opening – a striking statistic, the correction of a common misconception, or the potential of a new technology – draws the audience in immediately; questions can serve as a useful structural device (e.g., “What happens when coastlines shrink?” → “How can we prevent it?”)

● Language. Avoid technical terms (e.g., “hydronumerical methods”) – or explain them in plain language; be aware of terms whose meaning differs between academic and policy contexts (e.g., significance, risk, long-term/short-term); this also applies to terminology that is familiar within the research system but unfamiliar to outsiders (e.g., Horizon funding, collaborative research centers, principal investigators, peer review); test your pitch with a non-specialist audience before the workshop: Are all terms trulyunderstandable?

● Visuals. Avoid overloaded slides; label figures directly with key messages rather than expecting the audience to interpret them; use consistent design elements; visualize change over time or use comparisons to make the scale tangible (e.g., seagrass meadows versus the CO₂ emissions of a steak)

● Delivery. Avoid vague or hedged formulations; use direct address where appropriate (e.g., “I would therefore ask you to consider…”); speak with energy and engagement — vary your emphasis to underline key points, maintain eye contact even when reading from notes, and keep strictly to the (four-minute) time limit

● Funding. The goal of a policy pitch is to support evidence-informed decision making through scientific expertise – not to secure research funding; if you wish to advocate for funding, make this transparent from the outset through the title or framing of your pitch. conflating policy engagement with fundraising risks undermining your credibility with policymakers

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

Workshop facilitators

Introduce the exercise by briefly explaining the difference between communicating to academic audiences and to policy audiences. Distribute the task description and guidelines in advance so that participants can prepare their pitches before the workshop. After each presentation, facilitate structured peer feedback using the guidelines above as a framework. The exercise works well in groups of six to twelve participants, with feedback rounds of five to ten minutes per presentation. For larger groups, if two facilitators are available, group sessions are an option to save time and enable more personal feedback within a smaller cohort.

Researchers

Prepare a four-minute policy pitch based on your own research, applying the guidelines above. During the feedback round, give and receive constructive feedback: Is the audience clearly defined? Are the key messages clear? Are there concrete policy options? Is the language accessible to a non-specialist?

Policymakers

If policymakers are present, invite them to give feedback from their own perspective after participants have presented their pitches. Their input on what they actually find useful and what they find confusing or unconvincing is typically the most memorable and instructive feedback participants receive.

Sources and further reading

Conrad, Paulina; Sielemann, Katharina; Sandevski, Tome (2025), Tipps zur Vorbereitung von Vorträgen und Policy Briefs für den Science-Policy Dialog [Tips for Preparing Presentations and Policy Briefs for Science-Policy Dialogue], https://www.allianz-meeresforschung.de/app/uploads/2025/07/science-policy-dialog-tipps.pdf

Cairney, Paul; Kwiatkowski, Richard (2017), How To Communicate Effectively with Policymakers: Combine Insights from Psychology and Policy Studies, Palgrave Communications 3, 1-8.

Four Roles, Five Researchers: A Role-Playing Exercise on Scientific Advice

Written by Tome Sandevski. Posted in Content, Teaching and Learning Methods OV. No Comments on Four Roles, Five Researchers: A Role-Playing Exercise on Scientific Advice

Key features in a nutshell

Whether and how scientists should make policy recommendations is a contested issue; this exercise puts participants in the shoes of researchers who must decide whether to respond to a request from policymakers; it builds on the four ideal-typical roles put forward in Roger Pielke book, The Honest Broker
The scenario appears simple at first glance, but it proves to be genuinely sophisticated once participants discuss the various options in small groups – positions that initially seem clear-cut often turn out to be harder to defend than expected
The exercise takes about 30-60 minutes; it can be integrated into training on science for policy and is especially suited to workshops bringing together participants from different academic disciplines

How does the format work?

Step 1 (5–10 minutes): The workshop facilitator introduces the following scenario: participants are researchers and members of an interdisciplinary research group on healthy nutrition. The research group receives a request from the mayor’s office and must decide whether to accept it. The facilitator shares the scenario description, either as printed copies or electronically, and divides participants into groups of 3–5 people.

Step 2 (15–5 minutes): Each group discusses the following questions:

Which researcher’s position do you find most convincing, and why?
Would you accept the request from the mayor’s office? What conditions, if any, would you set? While the scenario appears to be quite simple, it turns out to be sophisticated once the participants discuss the various options in small groups; ask at least one person per group to take notes of the discussion and present the answers of the groups in the following plenary session
Which positions correspond to Roger Pielke’s typology?

Using a second worksheet, groups then match Pielke’s four roles to the five researchers in the scenario by drawing connecting lines. Definitions of all four roles are provided directly on the accompanying worksheet, so no prior familiarity with Pielke’s book is required. Importantly, the matching is not one-to-one: a single role can apply to more than one researcher, and a researcher’s position can reflect more than one role. Groups note down a brief justification for each match. This task tends to generate the liveliest discussions since several researcher positions resist a clean fit.

Ask at least one person per group to take notes so the group’s discussion can be presented in the following plenary session.

Step 3 (10–25 minutes):

Convene all participants in plenary and ask whether they would accept the request from the mayor’s office – by show of hands or using an anonymous digital polling tool, which tends to allow more candid responses on a contested question like this one
Ask one group to share its responses with the others; ask the remaining groups to add any aspects not yet covered
Ask groups which match in the matching exercise was most difficult to agree on and why; This question often reveals more about the four roles than the matching exercise itself, since it forces participants to articulate exactly where a researcher’s position becomes ambiguous.

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

Workshop facilitators

The facilitator prepares a slide explaining the exercise. They provide printed or electronic copies of both worksheets — the scenario and the matching exercise — divide participants into groups, keep time during the group discussion, and moderate the concluding plenary session.

Researchers or research managers as participants

Researchers or research managers take part in the group discussion and connect the positions of the researchers in the scenario to Pielke’s four roles, noting their reasoning for each match. One member per group presents the group’s findings; other members are welcome to add their own perspectives during the plenary discussion.

Policymakers

If policymakers take part in the workshop, they are invited to share their perspective on the request and on the conditions proposed by the groups — including whether such conditions would be realistic or acceptable from their point of view. They can also speak to their expectations regarding scientific expertise more broadly.