Content - Policy Engagement Toolkit

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

Meeting Policymakers Where They Work

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

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

Description

Key features in a nutshell

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

How does the format work?

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

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

The step-by-step process:

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

Key results & impact

Track record at a glance:

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

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

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

Rollout & Practical Implementation

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

Tasks and resources

Scientists

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

Knowledge exchange managers and research managers

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

Policymakers

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

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

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

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

Written by Tome Sandevski. Posted in Content, Teaching and Learning Methods OV. No Comments 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, Cross-Cutting Issues 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.

The worksheets are available here (@Jannen: bitte die Datei V_ov_fourrolesfivereearchers_worksheet als Word Dokument hier verlinken)

Sources and further reading

Pielke, Roger (2007), The Honest Broker. Making Sense of Science and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

See contributions on the following issues as well

V_ov_fourrolefiveresearchers_worksheet_rmu_20260730

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

From Lecture Hall to Policy Desk: A Science-for-Policy Session for Law Students

Written by Finn-Lauritz Schmidt. Posted in Content, Teaching and Learning Methods CS. No Comments on From Lecture Hall to Policy Desk: A Science-for-Policy Session for Law Students

Key features in a nutshell

This format introduces law students and early-career legal researchers to academic policy engagement through two short scenario-based exercises embedded in a regular spring school programme
The first exercise trains participants to quickly extract key messages from academic and policy publications under real-time pressure, role-playing as parliamentary staffers preparing a same-day briefing
The second exercise uses Roger Pielke Jr.’s ‘honest broker’ framework to help participants critically reflect on the different roles researchers can play when advising policymakers
Both exercises require minimal preparation from facilitators and participants alike making this an easy addition to existing curricula – legal or otherwise

How did the format work?

Step 1: Conceptualization and Curriculum Design

Together with colleagues from the Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies in Pisa and Basel University, the authors organised the Spring School ‘Criminal Law and the Anthropocene: Cross-disciplinary Perspectives and Critical Approaches’ in Pisa in May 2026, for Master’s and doctoral students.

The Spring School comprised legal and interdisciplinary lectures, panel discussions, and writing workshops. The organisers deliberately sought to integrate a dedicated Science-for-Policy session for two key reasons:

Lack of formal training: Although legal scholars frequently advise policymakers, they rarely receive formal training on how to communicate their expertise effectively or reflect on their role as science advisers.
Careers in policymaking institutions: Many law graduates pursue careers in policymaking institutions. When drafting legislation on complex issues like climate change, they must seek expertise from natural scientists whose technical terminology and publication formats differ significantly from legal scholarship. These differences make it challenging for both sides to understand each other.

Since we had already collaborated with the ENGAGEgreen project at Goethe University, we knew the team was developing a Policy Engagement Toolkit, including teaching and learning materials. We approached the ENGAGEgreen team and presented our idea for a science-policy session; they provided descriptions of two exercises for us to use.

Step 2: Run the science-for-policy Session

The one-hour session was structured around two practical exercises followed by plenary discussions:

Exercise 1: Assessing publication acessibility (The eight-minute challenge)

Participants were assigned the roles of busy parliamentary staffers tasked with briefing an MP on salient policy issues (natural disasters and pesticide taxation). Working under extreme time pressure, participants had just eight minutes to scan four academic and policy-oriented publications to extract key messages and judge their readability.

Exercise 2: Reflecting advisory roles (The honest broker)

Participants analysed a scenario involving an interdisciplinary research team on nutrition asked by a mayor’s office for policy advice. Working in small groups, participants matched fictitious statements from team members with ideal-type advisory roles as conceptualised in Roger Pielke Jr.’s The Honest Broker (Pure Scientist, Science Arbiter, Issue Advocate, and Honest Broker).

Both exercises concluded with an interactive plenary discussion; twenty students and early career researchers participated in the session.

Step 3: Evaluation and participant feedback

Participant feedback was very positive. For many students and early-career researchers, working with concrete policy scenarios was a completely new experience. The session proved to be a highly effective, light-touch way to introduce academic policy engagement. While no formal evaluation results are available, the final discussion highlighted a productive controversy between the scientification of politics and the politicisation of science – an ambivalence we had deliberately addressed. Students engaged actively in this discussion, reflecting on the need to develop a self-understanding as researchers while recognising the limits, fallibility, and contingency of scientific knowledge in policy advice. The fact that this space for self-reflection emerged spontaneously in response to students’ contributions was positively received afterwards. The session can easily be integrated into standard university law curricula, or doctoral training.

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

Workshop facilitators

It took us approximately 3–4 hours to prepare, run, and evaluate the session. The teaching materials provided by the ENGAGEgreen project team were very helpful and easy to use.

Participating researchers and students

Participating doctoral researchers and students did not need to prepare in advance. They simply needed to bring a laptop to take part in the two exercises.

Policymakers

This was the first time we ran this session, and we deliberately kept it simple: we did not invite external policymakers since the spring school took place in Pisa, away from our usual Frankfurt-based networks. In hindsight, we do see clear added value in including policy professionals in future iterations, particularly junior policy professionals, who might be just as interested in sharing their own expertise needs with doctoral researchers and Master’s students as the students are in learning from them. For institutions replicating this format outside their home city, our advice would be to reach out to local or regional policy contacts at the host institution early on.

Sources and further reading

Erasmus+ project ENGAGEgreen, accessed on 20 August 2026.
Spring School Criminal Law and the Anthropocene. Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives and Critical Approaches, accessed on 20 August 2026.
ENGAGEgreen exercise: “Assessing the Accessibility of Policy Publications“, accessed on 20 August 2026.
ENGAGEgreen exercice: “The Nutrition Guide Dilemma“, accessed on 20 August 2026.

Pictures

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

Get Started, Keep Learning! A Facilitator’s Approach to Policy Engagement Training

Written by Tome Sandevski. Posted in Content, Teaching and Learning Methods CS. No Comments on Get Started, Keep Learning! A Facilitator’s Approach to Policy Engagement Training

Key features in a nutshell

Hands-on exercises beat slide decks: Participants gain a far deeper understanding of policymaking by analyzing real-world policy documents, organizational charts, and invitation pitches rather than consuming lectures passively
Teach competencies while considering capacities: Training builds the competencies needed for effective policy engagement, but capacities – time, funding, institutional access to policymakers, support structures – determine whether those competencies can actually be applied; there is no one-size-fits-all: effective policy engagement means matching formats and channels to participants’ resources and motivation.
“Get started, keep learning!” is the key message for the training: Participants should not wait to engage with policymakers until they have become policy experts themselves or mastered every possible format; by the end of the training, they need the confidence and skills to get started, knowing they will keep learning along the way.
Policymaker voices are essential: Having Members of Parliament or their staff, policy professionals from ministries, EU institutions, or international organizations talk about their tasks, routines, and experiences is invaluable; invite policymakers to join sessions whenever possible.

How does the format work?

Facilitating 33 workshops since 2019 – ranging from 60-minute crash courses to two-day intensive retreats – has been an ongoing process of practice, feedback, and refinement. Here are the core insights gained from continuously evolving these sessions.

From Slide Heavy to Hands-On (Practicing What We Preach)

In early workshops, a recurring piece of feedback was that I covered too many slides at too fast a pace. This was an eye-opener: while I was advising researchers to deliver concise key messages rather than overwhelming policymakers with information, my own slide decks were doing the exact opposite.

The Shift: I radically reduced the presentation slides in favor of active learning; today, participants work through various exercises (e.g., readability checks of policy briefs, audience mapping, crafting elevator pitches, analyzing organizational charts).

Pre-Workshop Preparation: Optional pre-workshop exercises (15–45 min) are offered to help participants get the maximum value out of the live session.

Result: Hands-on exercises are consistently rated highly since they help participants understand the importance of targeted communication and the constraints under which policymakers operate – and learning through doing tends to stick better than learning through listening.

Importance of capacities: In theory, researchers have many ways to engage with policymakers. In practice, capacities – time, funding, institutional access, support structures – determine which of these are realistic. A senior professor with a seat on an expert body, support by a dedicated secretariat, and institutional access has far more options than a doctoral researcher who is not yet known to policymakers and struggles to cover travel costs to a policy event in the capital.

The Shift: Rather than presenting a “one-size-fits-all” menu of engagement formats, the training actively addresses structural barriers. Facilitators must help participants identify time-efficient formats tailored to their specific career stage and available resources.

Empowering Early Action: I make clear that my workshops are not academic introductions to policymaking. Participants do not need to become policy experts nor master every detail of drafting policy briefs or organizing policy events.

The Shift: What they need is enough understanding to get started sooner rather than later. They leave with checklists covering what to address next, and with the confidence to begin engaging – knowing that further learning will come with practice.

Involving policymakers: Incorporating guests from ministries, the European Commission, international organizations, or parliaments (usually staffers) for a 1-to-2-hour concluding Q&A session has proven to be very effective.

The Shift: Participants consistently find it valuable to hear directly about policymakers’ constraints, routines, and expertise needs. The policymakers involved are typically approachable and encourage participants to reach out proactively. In in-person workshops, they are usually invited to lunch as well, which further supports informal exchange and networking.

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

Workshop facilitators

While individual workshops run between 60 minutes and two days, developing their structure and content has taken several months in total over the years. After each session, I review participant feedback and update the relevant material, including repeated revisions to the slide decks. Cutting slides was painful but proved essential.

Researchers and research managers as participants in workshops

Participants are informed in advance that the workshop involves hands-on exercises, including optional preparatory ones. Most enjoy the exercises and group discussions, which keep the sessions lively. Participants typically spend between two hours and two days in the workshop.

Policymakers

Policymakers join for a single 1–2-hour session. In in-person workshops, they are also invited to lunch – a valuable opportunity to connect with the researchers and research managers.

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

Student Internships

Written by Martina Miechová. Posted in Content, Teaching and Learning Methods CS. No Comments on Student Internships

What is the format about?

Student internships are a well-established form of collaboration between universities and policymaking institutions. They are particularly suitable for students in the later years of a bachelor’s or master’s degree program. During an internship, students gain valuable professional experience and develop an understanding of how institutions operate from the inside. They become familiar with organizational structures, decision-making processes, strategic priorities, and day-to-day activities. Internships also provide opportunities to build professional networks that can support their future career development. For host institutions, internships offer the opportunity to benefit from students’ expertise, up-to-date academic knowledge, and fresh perspectives on the policy issues they address. The successful implementation of internships requires active engagement and sustained organizational support from both the university and the host institution. As such, this collaboration format contributes to the institutionalization of science-policy dialogue, the expansion of professional networks beyond the research community, and the establishment of long-term support mechanisms that become embedded in the functioning of both universities and policymaking institutions.

How it works

The duration of the internship, its content, and the formal requirements are determined through an agreement between the university and the host institution. In some study programs, internships are a compulsory part of the curriculum, while in others they are offered as an elective component that may replace part of the coursework or provide students with additional practical experience. In both cases, universities should actively encourage students to undertake internships within public sector institutions. An important role of the staff responsible for organizing and coordinating internships is to identify suitable students and match them with the appropriate department or unit within the host institution. The aim is to ensure that students’ knowledge and skills align with the needs of the workplace while providing them with relevant practical experience. One possible approach to selecting suitable candidates is for the host institution to define the desired applicant profile, after which students can be matched based on their motivation letter and the qualifications they have acquired during their studies.

Before the internship begins, several practical arrangements need to be completed. These include obtaining approval from the relevant university department, arranging the recognition of the internship for ECTS credits where applicable, concluding an agreement between the student and the host institution, and appointing one or more supervisors responsible for guiding the student throughout the internship. In addition to describing the internship tasks, the agreement may also specify working hours and the work location, the student’s level of involvement in the activities of the host institution, access rights to information, internal systems and tools, and the provision of any equipment required to perform the assigned tasks.

During the internship, the student becomes involved in the day-to-day activities of the host institution and contributes to tasks that reflect both the knowledge and skills acquired through their studies and the current needs of the host organization. At the beginning of the internship, it is therefore important to align expectations by clarifying what the student already knows, what they are expected to learn during the internship, and what the host institution expects from them. Students typically begin with basic tasks that help assess their abilities while also providing a learning opportunity. As they gain experience, they can gradually take on more complex tasks and make a more substantial contribution to the work of the host institution. The internship may also include the delivery of a specific output or project.

Once the internship has been completed, it should be evaluated. The evaluation may take different forms (e.g., an assessment, feedback form, or a report), but it should always focus on what the student has learned and how they have contributed to the host institution. The written evaluation is then submitted to the student’s academic department as confirmation of the completed internship and, where applicable, for the recognition of ECTS credits.

Challenges and how to solve them

The format, content, and expected outcomes of an internship need to be adapted to its duration; a one-week internship focused primarily on familiarization with the functioning of the institution will have a different structure than an internship lasting several months, which allows the student to become gradually involved in professional activities and to take on a greater level of responsibility
Students may have extensive theoretical knowledge but no experience applying it in practice; clear ssignments, regular feedback, and well-defined expected outcomes help prevent misunderstandings
In the case of students without previous work experience, sufficient attention needs to be paid to their adaptation to the work environment, including the clear definition of rules, expectations, and formal and informal workplace practices
The implementation of an internship places increased time demands on the supervisor and other staff involved in guiding the student; it is therefore appropriate to take this time investment into account already when planning the internship and to adapt the scope of tasks and the capacity of the host institution accordingly
At some universities and institutions, internships are organized more on an operational basis, depending on the needs and possibilities of individual university departments/host institution units, or through the human resources department, which occasionally mediates internship opportunities. This may result in a limited offer of internships and organizational shortcomings related to their coordination. A suitable solution is to establish a unified internship system at the level of the entire institution, which clearly defines a contact point for internship coordination, procedures for assigning internships and communication with universities/host institutions, while also allowing individual units to define their needs and capacities. This makes it possible to better connect students with relevant host departments.

Tasks and resources

The student

The students are required to familiarize themselves with the conditions and content of the internships and to agree with the host institution and the university on the formal requirements of the internship (e.g., administrative requirements, ECTS credits recognition, internship schedule and scope). During the internship, the student actively participates in the activities of the host department and completes assigned tasks within the agreed scope and deadlines. The student applies the knowledge and skills acquired through their studies when addressing tasks while also learning new procedures and methods of work in practice. They communicate with their supervisor, regularly verify their understanding of assigned tasks, and make use of the feedback provided. The student respects the rules and operations of the host institution, including work procedures, internal regulations, and any requirements regarding the confidentiality of information. Upon completion of the internship, the student fulfills the requirements set by the university and the host institution for the recognition and successful completion of the internship.

The supervisor

The supervisor provides professional guidance and support to the student throughout the internship. They assign tasks that correspond to the student’s knowledge and abilities, taking into account the current stage of the internship, with the aim of gradually increasing the student’s level of independence. The supervisor regularly monitors the completion of assigned tasks, provides feedback to the student, helps them understand the broader context of their work, and supports their involvement in the functioning of the workplace.

The coordination staff

The relevant staff member on the university side (HR officer, department secretary/assistant, or other support staff) is responsible for publishing the internship offer, selecting a suitable candidate, and connecting them with the relevant department or unit of the host institution. They provide the student with all necessary information regarding the organization and conditions of the internship and, where appropriate, facilitate communication with the department management, the student affairs office, etc. The relevant staff member on the host institution’s side serves as the student’s contact person both before the start of the internship and throughout its implementation. They ensure communication with the management of the relevant workplace and the selected supervisor, oversee the finalization of the internship conditions, and arrange the necessary documentation (agreement, evaluation form, etc.).

An example

Internship of a bachelor’s student in the Social Science Analyst program at the Control Department – Support and Data Processing Unit of the Regional Authority of the Olomouc Region.

Scope and organization of the internship

The internship was carried out over a total of 350 hours distributed across two semesters. The student was present at the workplace three days a week. She had her own workspace in the office and access to the necessary technical equipment, including a computer. Two supervisors were involved in supervising the internship; the student shared a workspace with them, and they provided her with ongoing support and guidance. An internship agreement was concluded with the student, and, upon completion of the internship, she received a certificate confirming completion of the placement as well as a written evaluation of the internship.

Professional focus of the internshipThe student’s focus was on qualitative data analysis, the interpretation of human behavior, and social science perspectives. This differed from the usual agenda of the workplace, which primarily works with structured data and its quantitative processing. While the workplace typically analyzes numerical data, the student contributed a perspective focused on understanding the broader contexts and factors underlying these data. Her professional focus therefore complemented the technically oriented approach of the workplace with insights from the social sciences.

Internship content and tasks

During the first half of the internship, the student focused on basic data preparation and data cleaning. Specifically, her tasks included:

Processing and categorizing a dataset on cultural and creative industries in the region
Processing the list of regional investments with regard to the geographical location of investments for future map visualization
Graphical presentation of data: editing interactive charts and tables, standardizing terminology, and ensuring the consistency of exported data
Working with metadata for datasets on the data portal; using AI to create dataset descriptions and tables for open datasets published on the data portal

During the second half of the internship, the student worked on more advanced tasks, including:

Statistical evaluation of data on cultural and creative industries in the region (e.g., in relation to the demographics of municipalities, education, employment, etc.)
Familiarization with spatial analyses and data visualization using maps in ArcGIS software
Identification of potential new datasets suitable for publication as open data and preparation of the results in the form of a presentation for the public open data portal

Benefits of the collaboration

The collaboration was beneficial for both parties. Thanks to her academic focus and subject-specific knowledge, the student brought a different approach to working with data, particularly qualitative analysis with an overlap into the field of psychometrics while also significantly reducing the workload of the department by assisting with routine tasks. During the internship, the student expanded her knowledge of quantitative data processing, which represents a more technical aspect of working with data. She learned to work with various data formats, to transform them into a standardized form, to ensure consistency in data processing, and to use freely available software tools for data visualization. At the same time, the internship represented the student’s first work experience and her first experience with the functioning of a public administration institution.

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

Marine and Environmental Researchers Learn to Pitch: A Case Study from DAM and Helmholtz Forum Earth and Environment

Written by Tome Sandevski. Posted in Content, Teaching and Learning Methods CS. No Comments on Marine and Environmental Researchers Learn to Pitch: A Case Study from DAM and Helmholtz Forum Earth and Environment

Key features in a nutshell

In 2025, the German Marine Research Alliance (DAM) and the Helmholtz Forum Earth and Environment organized two competence-building workshops on science–policy dialogue; about 40 of the approximately 50 participants went on to prepare and present four-minute policy pitches four to six weeks after the initial workshops
After each pitch, participants received structured feedback from their peers and the workshop facilitators; mst participants kept to the time limit and delivered well-structured presentations; the most common challenges were explaining the relevance of their research to policymakers, avoiding technical jargon, and especially formulating concrete policy options
The exercise proved to be an effective way to translate workshop content into practical skills and to prepare participants for future engagement with policymakers

How does the format work?

In January and June 2025, the German Marine Research Alliance (DAM) and the Helmholtz Forum Earth and Environment organized two competence-building workshops on science–policy dialogue in Berlin. Around 60 researchers and knowledge exchange officers from various research institutions participated across both workshops. Each workshop ran from noon to noon over two days and covered topics, including the roles of policymakers, understanding policymaking contexts, and an overview of policy engagement formats.

To make the workshop content applicable in practice, the facilitators invited participants to prepare a policy pitch as a follow-up exercise. The process unfolded in four steps.

Step 1: Introduce the exercise
In the final 30 minutes of each workshop, the facilitators explained the aims and structure of the follow-up exercise. Participation was optional. Participants who chose to take part were invited to present a four-minute policy pitch four to six weeks after the workshop. Several virtual dates were offered, and participants could select the one that suited them best. The exercise instructions were also sent to all participants in writing after the workshop.

Step 2: Participants prepare their pitches
Between the workshop and the follow-up session, participants prepared their policy pitches independently. Facilitators were available for questions by email, though none of the participants made use of this offer.

Step 3: Conduct the virtual pitch sessions
The virtual follow-up sessions lasted between 90 and 120 minutes. Each participant presented a policy pitch of no more than four minutes, followed by peer feedback and input from the facilitators. The peer-to-peer feedback proved particularly constructive, participants’ observations were thoughtful and constructive.

Step 4: Summarize and share the feedback
After the sessions, the facilitators compiled the key feedback points and shared them with all participants. This summary formed the basis for the written guidelines on preparing policy pitches and policy briefs, which were subsequently published on the DAM website.

What the exercise revealed: results and common challenges

Of the 50 workshop participants, 42 went on to present a policy pitch in the follow-up sessions – an outstanding participation rate of 84 percent for an optional exercise.

What worked well:

Most presentations were well structured and within the four-minute time limit
Peer-to-peer feedback was consistently constructive and generated substantive discussion
Participants reported that the exercise helped them apply what they had learned in the workshop to their own research

Common challenges:

Technical jargon: Several participants used terms familiar within their field without realizing these would be unfamiliar to a policy audience
Relevance framing: Explaining why their research matters to policymakers – rather than to fellow researchers – proved difficult for a number of participants
Policy options: Formulating concrete, actionable policy options based on research findings was the most consistently challenging element of the exercise.

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

Workshop facilitators

Facilitators introduce the exercise during the final session of the workshop, set the virtual follow-up dates, send written instructions to participants, moderate the pitch and feedback sessions, and compile and distribute a summary of the key feedback points afterwards.

Researchers and research managers (workshop participants)

Participants prepare a four-minute policy pitch on their own research topic between the workshop and the follow-up session, present it in the virtual session, and provide peer feedback on their fellow participants’ pitches.

Policymakers

Policymakers did not participate in the pitch sessions in the 2025 editions of this exercise. However, they did participate in the initial workshops, where they emphasized the importance of concise, accessible, and policy-relevant presentations. Future editions of the exercise could benefit from including at least one policymaker in the feedback sessions.

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

Interview – From Data to Action: Inside the Mission to Make “One Health” a Policy Reality

Written by Giulia Ballarin. Posted in Content, Cross-Cutting Issues CS - english. No Comments on Interview – From Data to Action: Inside the Mission to Make “One Health” a Policy Reality

Interview-Partner

Gaia Bertarelli is Associate Professor of Social Statistics in the Department of Economics at Ca’ Foscari University of Venice. Her research focuses on statistical methods for integrating complex data, including small area estimation, robust statistics, latent variable models, multidimensional indicators, and methods for combining different data sources. Her applied work addresses health systems, social inequalities, poverty, gender differences, and sustainable well-being. Within PLANET4HEALTH, her contribution is closely connected to the project’s ambition to transform fragmented environmental, health, and socioeconomic data into evidence that can support more equitable, timely, and actionable policy decisions.

Questions:

The PLANET4HEALTH project operates under a powerful and urgent mission: translating science into policy. From your perspective at Ca’ Foscari University, how does your team’s focus on data analysis, health inequalities, and climate vulnerabilities help bridge this gap, and what is the biggest challenge when turning such complex environmental risk data into actionable policies?

At Ca’ Foscari, our role is to transform complex environmental and health data into information that is meaningful at the level where decisions are actually made. It is not enough to establish that climate change or pollution affects health. Policymakers need to know which populations and territories are most vulnerable, how risks are distributed, and where an intervention could have the greatest impact.

We therefore combine environmental, climatic, health, and socioeconomic information and use statistical methods capable of detecting inequalities that may be hidden in national or regional averages. This is particularly important for vulnerable groups and smaller geographical areas where conventional indicators may not provide a sufficiently detailed or reliable picture.

The greatest challenge is not simply the volume of data. It is the heterogeneity of the data: they come from different institutions, cover different periods, use different geographical scales, and have different levels of quality and accessibility. We need to communicate these limitations and uncertainties without making the results unusable. Good policy evidence must be scientifically rigorous, but it must also be interpretable, timely, and connected to a realistic course of action. PLANET4HEALTH was designed precisely to address this fragmentation and develop interoperable tools that can support preparedness and policy decisions.

A key element of Horizon Europe projects is governance, and PLANET4HEALTH places a strong emphasis on continuous dialogue with its External Advisory Board (EAB). Can you share an example of how the EAB’s feedback has directly shaped the development of your technical tools and early warning systems?

One important contribution by the External Advisory Board has been to remind us that technical tools must be designed from the beginning with their final users in mind. An early warning system is not useful simply because it produces a prediction; it becomes useful when public authorities can understand the signal, trust it, and know what kind of action it should trigger.

For example, in the development of our digital tools and early warning approaches, the EAB’s feedback has helped us focus not only on model performance, but also on interpretability, comparability across case studies, and usability for decision makers. This means paying attention to questions such as: What indicators are most relevant for local authorities? How should uncertainty be visualized? What level of spatial detail is useful without creating misleading precision? And how can alerts be linked to feasible preparedness or prevention actions?

This feedback has encouraged us to think of the platform not as purely scientific output but as a decision-support environment. The tools must allow users to explore data, understand drivers of risk, and compare possible scenarios. In this sense, the EAB helps us keep the work grounded in practical governance needs, rather than developing models that remain only in the research community.

Dealing with diverse case studies, from air pollution in South Africa to food safety in Central Europe, requires a vast bird’s-eye view. How does the EAB help you maintain a cohesive global vision while addressing highly localized environmental issues?

The diversity of the case studies is one of the strengths of PLANET4HEALTH, but it also creates a methodological and governance challenge. Air pollution in South Africa, food contamination in Central Europe, vector-borne diseases, and climate-related mental well-being are very different issues. They involve different data sources, institutions, exposure pathways, and policy contexts. At the same time, they all raise a common question: How does environmental degradation affect human, animal, and ecosystem health, and how can societies respond earlier and more effectively?

The EAB helps us maintain this common frame. It brings an external perspective that is not limited to one case study or one discipline. This is very valuable because it pushes us to identify what is transferable across contexts: common indicators, shared principles for data integration, comparable approaches to vulnerability, and common standards for communicating uncertainty.

At the same time, the EAB helps ensure that we do not impose a one-size-fits-all approach. Local context matters enormously. Data availability, institutional capacity, cultural practices, and policy priorities differ from place to place. The challenge is to develop tools and lessons that are general enough to be replicated but flexible enough to be meaningful locally. The EAB supports precisely this balance between global coherence and local relevance.

Policy making often operates on different timelines compared to scientific research. What specific strategies is PLANET4HEALTH implementing to ensure that local and European policy makers don’t just receive data at the end of the 4-year cycle, but are engaged throughout the process?

We are treating engagement as part of the research process, rather than as a communication activity that begins after the research has finished. Stakeholders are involved in identifying problems, assessing available data, defining useful outputs and discussing how the tools could fit into existing decision-making procedures.

During the project’s first year, stakeholder workshops were already organized around the early warning system for vector-borne diseases, the adoption of air-pollution tools in South Africa, and an early reporting system for PFAS and other pollutants in Central Europe.

The South African case study illustrates the value of this continuous dialogue. Researchers engaged directly with government departments to understand their immediate concerns. A discussion about waste collection and a rat infestation revealed a connection to informal waste burning and air pollution. Listening to what authorities were dealing with in practice helped the researchers identify a concrete area where evidence could support action and helped build trust between the parties.

Alongside local workshops, the project uses its External Advisory Board, consortium reviews, policy briefs, training activities and collaboration with the wider Planetary Health Cluster to create repeated points of contact with decision makers. This allows feedback to influence the research while there is still time to adapt it.

Data fragmentation across different institutions is a known bottleneck. How will the open-access digital platforms and tools developed by Ca’ Foscari and its partners empower public authorities to make truly “proactive” rather than “reactive” decisions?

A proactive system brings together information that is usually considered separately. Instead of waiting for mortality, disease, or contamination data to reveal that a crisis has already occurred, authorities can examine environmental conditions, exposure patterns, vulnerable populations, and emerging trends within an integrated system.

PLANET4HEALTH aims to collect and organize existing and new data, develop interoperable digital prototypes, and provide open-access tools and research materials to public authorities and researchers. These tools should help users move from asking “What happened?” to asking “Where is the risk increasing, who is likely to be affected, and what intervention can be made now?”

Open access alone, however, is not sufficient. Data must be documented, compared, managed ethically , and presented in an understandable form. Planetary health governance must also integrate animal, environmental, and food-system data rather than relying only on human health datasets.

Finally, looking ahead to the completion of the project, what would a “successful policy impact” look like for you? What is the main legacy you hope PLANET4HEALTH leaves in the field of planetary health governance?

For me, successful policy impact would mean that PLANET4HEALTH does not remain only a research project but becomes part of how institutions think and act on environmental and health risks. A strong outcome would be seeing our tools, indicators, and methodological approaches used by public authorities to support prevention, adaptation, and more integrated planning.

Success would also mean that the project helps policymakers recognize health inequalities as an essential part of environmental governance. Climate and environmental risks are not distributed equally, and policies should reflect that. If our work helps institutions identify vulnerable territories and populations earlier and design more targeted responses, then the project will have made a meaningful contribution.

The legacy I hope PLANET4HEALTH leaves is a practical model for planetary health governance: interdisciplinary, data-driven, transparent, and oriented toward action. This means stronger connections between researchers, public authorities, citizens, and stakeholders; better integration of fragmented data; and tools that help transform early signals into early action.

Ultimately, the goal is not only to produce knowledge but to make that knowledge usable. If PLANET4HEALTH helps embed a One Health and planetary health perspective into everyday policy decisions, then its impact will continue beyond the formal end of the project.

The interview was conducted by Giulia Ballarin (Ca’ Foscari University of Venice)

SOURCES AND FURTHER READING

Cross-project collaboration

About the project:

PLANET4HEALTH – TRANSLATING SCIENCE INTO POLICY: A Multisectoral Approach to Adaptation & Mitigation of Adverse Effects of Vector-Borne Diseases, Environmental Pollution and Climate Change on Planetary Health; funded by the European Union. Grant Agreement No. 101136652. (2024 – 2028)

Project’s LinkedIn

Browse through the project’s deliverables and publications on its Zenodo webpage

Meet the partners on the YouTube channel

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

The ‘By the Way, We Need Funding’ Trap: Why Policy Engagement is Not a Funding Pitch

Written by Tome Sandevski. Posted in Content, Cross-Cutting Issues OV. No Comments on The ‘By the Way, We Need Funding’ Trap: Why Policy Engagement is Not a Funding Pitch

Key features in a nutshell

Policy engagement is about providing scientific expertise to policymakers – not about securing research funding; lobbying for funding is legitimate, but it must not be conflated with policy engagement; researchers who wish to raise the issue of funding with policymakers should make this transparent from the outset rather than camouflaging fundraising as policy engagement
Mixing policy engagement with fundraising risks undermining researchers’ credibility with policymakers, one of the most valuable and hardest-to-rebuild assets a researcher has
When researchers advise policymakers on funding policies, they should proactively disclose any conflicts of interest

What is the issue?

Imagine you receive a phone call from your insurance company. The representative informs you that there are new research reports on fire insurance, contents insurance, dental insurance, and travel cancellation insurance they would like to discuss with you. What is your first reaction: ‘How thoughtful, they know I take an interest in research!’ or ‘There’s a catch. They want to sell me something!’?

Most people would assume the latter, and they would usually be right. Researchers who raise the issue of funding at meetings or events not set up for that purpose risk triggering exactly the same reaction from policymakers. To avoid this, researchers must clearly separate policy engagement from lobbying for funding. Failing to do so creates two distinct problems:

Loss of credibility. Researchers enjoy a high degree of credibility among policymakers — but this credibility is fragile. Once a researcher is perceived as more interested in fundraising rather than offering expert advice, they may lose access to policymakers entirely. Rebuilding that trust is difficult and time-consuming.

Shift in the impact dimension. The questions that typically guide policy engagement are: Which evidence the policymakers taken up? How has our work influenced policy? Have we gained new research ideas through the engagement process? Combining policy engagement with fundraising introduces a different set of questions: How much funding was acquired? How did my institution benefit financially? Over time, institutional leaders may begin to evaluate policy engagement activities primarily based on funding secured – which fundamentally changes the nature and purpose of policy engagement.

Lobbying for research funding is perfectly legitimate and necessary. Policymaking institutions routinely consult individual researchers, scientific institutions, and academic associations when designing new funding programmes, and such input is genuinely valuable. Researchers and institutions can and should raise the issue of funding with policymakers. When doing so, the following principles apply:

Be transparent about your goals from the outset. When organising a meeting or event at which funding will be discussed, policymakers must know this in advance. Raising funding unexpectedly – particularly at an event convened for a different purpose – is likely to be perceived as discourteous and may have the opposite effect.

Do not present funding as the answer to every policy problem. Researchers understandably want more resources, but policymakers are there to solve policy issues. If an event is convened to discuss how energy consumption can be reduced, the answer should not be ‘by giving my research group more funding’. If researchers consistently respond to policy questions with calls for more funding, policymakers will begin to see them as fundraisers rather than experts.

Demonstrate expertise before expecting recognition. Policy engagement can result in researchers being recognised as credible, go-to experts. But this recognition must be earned. Researchers should not assume that a strong academic reputation automatically translates into visibility in policymaking circles.

Researchers should avoid the following at policy events:

Complaining about the lack of research funding at events that are not about funding policies
Speaking disparagingly about other research institutions or researchers
Focusing on research gaps, equipment needs, unfilled positions, and publications in academic journals, rather than on the concrete contributions their expertise can make to a policy problem and its societal or economic benefits

What to do when policymakers ask researchers to advise on funding policies?

When researchers are explicitly asked to advise on research funding – as part of a consultation, an expert committee, or a funding programme design process – the following principles apply:

Disclose conflicts of interest proactively. Researchers should clearly communicate how they or their institution would benefit from the funding being discussed. This transparency is essential for maintaining credibility and for ensuring that policymakers can properly weigh the advice they receive. Researchers can simultaneously be the most qualified experts on a topic and potential beneficiaries of the funding they are recommending. This dual role is not inherently problematic, but it must be acknowledged explicitly. A researcher who advises on energy research funding while leading an energy research group should say so clearly.
Focus on the evidence, not the ask. When advising on funding priorities, researchers should ground their input in evidence about societal needs and research gaps – not in the interests of their own institution or research group. Policymakers are more likely to act on advice that is clearly oriented to the public good than institutional self-interest.
Consider involving an independent intermediary. In situations where conflicts of interest are particularly pronounced, researchers may consider channelling their input through an independent body – such as a learned society, an academic association, or a science advisory council – rather than engaging with policymakers directly.

Tasks

Researchers

Researchers should be clear in their own minds – and transparent with policymakers – about whether a given interaction concerns policy engagement or fundraising. Some overlap is inevitable, particularly when advising on funding programmes. In those cases, researchers should disclose conflicts of interest proactively and ensure that policymakers are not surprised by a funding conversation they did not expect. A useful self-check: researchers should put themselves in the shoes of someone being asked for money without warning – would they appreciate being put on the spot?

Knowledge mobilisers

Knowledge mobilisers can support researchers by drafting clear institutional guidelines on the distinction between policy engagement and fundraising, and by establishing transparent procedures for managing conflicts of interest. When organising policy events or dialogue formats, they should brief researchers in advance on the purpose of the event — and make it explicit that fundraising at events not designed for that purpose is counterproductive.

Policymakers

Policymakers who notice that researchers are conflating policy engagement with fundraising should feel empowered to address this directly.

They can clarify the purpose of a meeting at the outset and redirect conversations that drift towards funding to a more appropriate forum.