Description

Key features in a nutshell

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

How does the format work?

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

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

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

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

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

Challenges (and ways to address them)

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

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

Tasks and resources

Scientists

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

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

Support staff (knowledge exchange managers and research managers)

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

Policymakers

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

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

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

Required funding for activities

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

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

Required resources at a glance

Examples

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

About the author

Tome Sandevski heads the policy engagement unit at Goethe University Frankfurt, where he coordinates the joint policy engagement projects of the Rhine-Main Universities: Goethe University Frankfurt, Technical University Darmstadt, and Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz.

Summary: Key features in a nutshell

• Objective: To implement participatory methods that ensure broad community involvement in the decision-making process regarding local development
• Approach: Combining online consultations, interactive workshops, and collaborative projects where diverse stakeholders come together to identify challenges and co-design solutions
• Outcome: A democratic process where solutions reflect the needs and contributions of all stakeholders, creating ownership and ensuring sustainability in the implementation phase

Description

Implementing participatory approaches requires engaging diverse stakeholders – local communities, researchers, policymakers, citizenship, and businesses – to co-create solutions that address regional challenges. Effective participatory methods empower communities to play an active role in shaping local development strategies, ensuring that solutions are not only scientifically informed but also locally relevant and sustainable.

UGR County Councils refers to the initiative led by the University of Granada (UGR) under the Erasmus + ENGAGEgreen project which aims to foster collaboration between academic researchers, local governments, and community stakeholders. This initiative focuses on addressing regional challenges through co-created, research-driven solutions and exemplifies a successful model for participatory governance in the context of territorial development.

How does the format work?

• Stakeholder Identification. The participatory approach begins with the identification and mapping of relevant stakeholders, a process coordinated by Medialab UGR within the framework of the Impronta initiative. This mapping includes not only governmental actors and researchers but also civil society organisations, local businesses, and community members who hold valuable knowledge about local challenges.
• Data Collection and Consultation. Online surveys, focus groups, and interactive workshops are used to collect input from these stakeholders. UGR County Councils, for instance, used online preparatory meetings to gather insights from stakeholders, prior to the in-person Second Impronta Granada meeting and its interactive workshops. This method ensures that diverse voices are heard from the outset.
• Co-Creation and Collaborative Planning. Once needs are identified, co-creation workshops are organised by Medialab UGR within the framework of the Impronta initiative, bringing together researchers, policymakers, civil society, and local businesses to collaboratively develop action plans. These workshops are conducted in real time, allowing for immediate feedback and adaptation. This approach was implemented In the Second Impronta Granada Meeting through the organisation of micropresentations, coordinated by Medialab UGR, where researchers showcased their projects and received direct input from local stakeholders.
• Public Visibility and Ongoing Engagement. Digital platforms such as the Impronta Granada website help maintain visibility and engagement. Research projects, community initiatives, and stakeholder profiles are made publicly available, allowing all participants to track progress and contribute to the discussion. Actor profiles and UGR project entries are key tools in ensuring continuous participation and keeping the community engaged.

Challenges

• Coordination and Communication. In complex multi-stakeholder projects, ensuring clear communication between actors can be challenging. The UGR County Councils initiative highlights the need for dedicated facilitation to coordinate between different sectors and ensure that all voices are heard.
• While initial participation can be strong, maintaining engagement over time is a common challenge. Researchers, policymakers, and community leaders need to be committed to continuous collaboration beyond the initial workshops or meetings.

Tasks and resources

Scientists

• Tasks
  • Provide research findings that inform the participatory process
  • Facilitate workshops and co-creation activities
• Required resources
  • Research dissemination tools, such as databases, interactive websites, and community-based data collection tools.

Knowledge exchange managers and research managers

• Tasks
  • Coordinate stakeholder engagement
  • Manage the organisation of online and in-person consultations
  • Ensure that feedback is effectively incorporated into the development process
• Required resources
  • Communication tools (e.g., websites, social media platforms); workshop materials (e.g., visual aids, data collection tools).

Policymakers

• Tasks
  • Create policy frameworks that reflect the inputs from the participatory process
  • Allocate resources for implementation
  • Ensure continuous engagement with community leaders
• Required resources
  • Policy expertise and financial resources to support the implementation of the co-created solutions.

Required resources at a glance

Examples

ENGAGEgreen Project and UGR County Councils

The Erasmus + ENGAGEgreen project and the UGR County Councils initiative highlight how participatory approaches can effectively connect academic research with local governance. As part of this approach, several preparatory activities were carried out, including the first Impronta Granada Meeting in January 2025, followed by the UGR County Councils meeting in July 2025, and the second Impronta Granada Meeting in December 2025, where researchers, local policymakers, businesses, and civil society actors came together to identify and address regional challenges such as sustainable tourism, heritage preservation, and economic development. These meetings helped align UGR research with the needs of the Poniente Granadino and other regions by actively involving researchers in discussions about local priorities. During these events, UGR researchers presented their ongoing projects, with some projects being mapped through an Excel database that catalogued research topics, researcher affiliations, and their relevant county councils. This process also helped to integrate research findings into the local policy discussions, encouraging collaboration between academia and local actors. Additionally, the Impronta Granada website was crucial in ensuring visibility for these UGR researchers, as it included actor profiles and project listings, categorised by UGR County Councils, which allowed stakeholders to filter and connect with relevant research in their regions. The use of online workshops and micropresentations allowed for continuous engagement and co-creation of solutions, making sure that academic knowledge was aligned with local development goals and integrated into long-term strategies.

Sources and further reading

• Impronta Granada Website – Impronta Granada Actor Profiles and UGR Projects in County Councils.
• Official coverage of the Impronta Granada meetings:
  • https://improntagranada.es/impronta/ii-impronta-granada-meeting-strengthens-the-university-territory-alliance-in-loja/
  • https://improntagranada.es/engage-green/i-impronta-granada-conference-bringing-together-representatives-from-all-regions-of-granada/
  • https://improntagranada.es/consejos-comarcales-ugr/the-university-of-granada-launches-the-regional-councils-initiative/
  • https://improntagranada.es/consejos-comarcales-ugr/la-universidad-de-granada-refuerza-su-apuesta-territorial-con-el-i-encuentro-de-los-consejos-comarcales-ugr-en-la-costa-tropical/

About the Authors: Esteban Romero Frías and Virginia Martínez Tudela

Esteban Romero-Frías (erf@ugr.es) currently works as Vice-Rector for Social Innovation, Employability and Entrepreneurship at the University of Granada and is 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 that are aimed at building bridges between universities, public institutions, and society to tackle regional challenges.

Virginia Martínez Tudela (vtudela@go.ugr.es) is a digital project manager specialising in strategic partnerships, intercultural communication and the coordination of multidisciplinary initiatives and international teams. She holds a BA in Translation and Interpreting from the University of Granada and an MA in International Relations from the University of Nebrija, complemented by specialised training in Digital Marketing and Community Management. Her strong interest in international cooperation and multilateral institutions has led her to engage with the United Nations and the International Labour Organization. At the University of Granada, she collaborates with Medialab UGR in European initiatives such as ENGAGEgreen.

What is a hackathon?

“Hackathon” is a combination of the words “hack” and “marathon.” It is an innovative format in which participants come together to brainstorm ideas and create solutions within a short period of time.

Also referred to as an “innovathon” or “ideathon,” a hackathon brings people together to use collective creativity to imagine and develop new ideas. This collaborative and intense format is designed to inspire innovation and deliver concrete results quickly.

What is our format about?

Hackathons have become increasingly popular over the past five years. They provide students with an opportunity to showcase their skills, explore new ideas, and collaborate with others from different backgrounds.

Hackathons are valuable for institutions because they can help students come up with innovative solutions together to address real challenges. It is also an effective way to strengthen the interaction and connections between universities and practice partners such as policymakers.

In our case, the hackathon format takes place during a week-long seminar dedicated to the topic of public policy design. This seminar option is open to two Master’s students from all disciplines at the university, and we expect 15 to 30 students per session.

Students can develop unique, practical ideas in just a week through intensive teamwork. Hackathons also highlight the value of multidisciplinary collaboration and structure the creative process around specific goals, especially – in our case – where students from all disciplines meet to work in groups of four to five students and combine different approaches to complex questions.

How does the format work?

We organize  a five-day hackathon  in a non-working week, dedicated to introductory courses (resulting in ECTS credits) where students from all disciplines can explore topics they have not yet encountered in their studies.  Our format is an in-person event and involves numerous on-site meetings where students can meet with key players in each year’s thematic area of activity.

The key steps

Step 1: Define the challenge

It is important to start by selecting a sponsor and working with them to define the theme or the topic and a related challenge. The challenge should be realistic and achievable within the timeframe. Effective communication is also important to attract motivated participants.

Step 2: Event launch

Kick off the hackathon with an opening session. The teacher explains the schedule and objectives for the week. The sponsor presents the challenge, including constraints and key considerations. Additional contributors, like associations or beneficiaries, may provide input to guide the students.

Step 3: Idea generation

Throughout the week, students take part in seminars and workshops led by instructors and experts. These sessions guide them as they brainstorm and refine their ideas.

Step 4: Prototyping

Once the groups have a clear idea, they move to the prototyping phase. This includes expert-led workshops and autonomous teamwork to create a concrete solution.

Step 5: Presentations and feedback

At the end of the week, the groups present their projects to the sponsor. These presentations may be followed by discussions and/or feedback to further refine the ideas.

Step 6: Post-event follow-up

It is important to stay in touch with both the sponsors and the students/participants after the event. This allows questions to be addressed and adjustments to be made along the practical implementation of the ideas developed. This follow-up stage also helps maintain good relationships with the sponsor and sets the stage for future collaboration.

For universities, grading a hackathon can be challenging. Instead, participation and engagement can be evaluated or feedback collected through a satisfaction survey.

Tasks and resources

A hackathon is a short, collaborative experience designed to inspire innovation and work in the field. Resources need to include an adequate assignment for the format and an external sponsor who is available for a few days.

Time and budget resources at a glance

Examples

https://www.univ-lyon2.fr/sciences-et-societe/les-poles-de-specialites/motif-design-des-politiques-publiques

Sources and further reading

https://www.bibliotheque-initiatives.fonction-publique.gouv.fr/files/2023-11/HACKATHON-LE-GUIDE-PRATIQUE.pdf

Description

Key features in a nutshell

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

How does the format work?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tasks and resources

Scientists

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

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

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

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

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

Knowledge exchange managers and research managers

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

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

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

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

Required resources at a glance

About the author

Tome Sandevski heads the policy engagement unit at Goethe University Frankfurt, where he coordinates the joint policy engagement projects of the Rhine-Main Universities: Goethe University Frankfurt, Technical University Darmstadt, and Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz.

Description

Key features in a nutshell

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

How does the format work?

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

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

What are the features of such programmes?

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

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

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

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

Tasks and resources

Scientists

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

Knowledge exchange managers and research managers

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

Policymakers

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

Required resources at a glance

About the author

Tome Sandevski heads the policy engagement unit at Goethe University Frankfurt, where he coordinates the joint policy engagement projects of the Rhine-Main Universities: Goethe University Frankfurt, Technical University Darmstadt, and Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz.

Description

Key features in a nutshell

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

How does the format work?

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

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

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

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

Challenges

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

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

Tasks and resources

Scientists

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

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

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

Support staff (knowledge exchange managers and research managers)

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

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

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

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

Policymakers

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

Required funding for activity

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

Required resources at a glance

About the author

Tome Sandevski heads the policy engagement unit at Goethe University Frankfurt, where he coordinates the joint policy engagement projects of the Rhine-Main Universities: Goethe University Frankfurt, Technical University Darmstadt, and Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz.

Introduction: What is the format about?

• A capsule format is a discussion in closed, small group sessions between researchers and policymakers (private). As a rule, these involve two researchers and two policymakers, but there can be  less or more if necessary. A small audience may also be present in this discussion.
• It is a free format that allows participants to engage in a free exchange without concern about a large audience listening in, after which the main points that emerged from the discussion are presented to the audience
• Topics must be open to discussion and the theme defined in advance because there is a public presentation later of the discussion, open to questions from the audience.

How does the format work?         

Part 1: The private meeting

The capsule format is based on a confidential and informal setting that is designed to encourage open and constructive discussions.

Generally, two or three policymakers meet with two or three researchers, ideally from different disciplines. The workshop is organized by knowledge exchange officers from the university when, as in our case, we have identified a common theme. The capsule was organized as part of a two-day conference, which gave us the opportunity to bring together researchers and policymakers interested in the topic and provide them with an important opportunity for private discussion on the subject. The meeting is closed to the public and the media. Participants are invited to freely share their knowledge, challenges, and questions without concerns about public communication or political position.

This format aims to create a climate of trust and can lead to mutually beneficial relationships in the future.

Policymakers can ask questions without fear of judgment, and researchers who are not accustomed to speaking in public can present complex or even sensitive findings.

This capsule format also makes it possible to move beyond short-term thinking by opening up new areas for action.

These dialogues can be one-off events or part of a cyclical process.

Part 2: The public presentation

At the end of the private session, a public debriefing can be organized to share the main ideas discussed while respecting the confidentiality of individual comments. This time allows for broader reflection and highlights the value of the discussion. In our case, the private session took place when the audience had broken for lunch. When they returned, the public session was included in the conference schedule for the day, which enabled us to have a significant, interested, and dynamic audience.

Challenges and how to address them

The main challenge of this format for support staff (knowledge exchange managers and research managers) is to maintain a common thread throughout the discussion to ensure the coherence and progression of the exchanges. To this end, the choice of moderator is crucial: he or she must have properly prepared the topics in advance, know how to rephrase comments, and make connections between the concerns of the participants, especially during the second phase of the public presentation.

Tasks and resources

Content: The content is very open, but the moderator must have thoroughly prepared the discussion topic and the limits of the researchers’ field of expertise and the limits of the policymakers’ field of activity for the discussion to be productive.

Although the format is fairly open, it requires a certain amount of preparation time for all participants. In fact, a meeting prior to the discussion is very useful for everyone to clarify their area of expertise and also to define the topics and limits of the discussion.

Required resources at a glance

Examples

https://www.univ-lyon2.fr/sciences-et-societe/nos-projets/review-of-the-capsule-meeting-between-policy-makers-and-reseachers-on-the-key-topic-the-management-of-urban-wastelands