Authors: Esteban Romero and David Corado

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

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

Summary: Key features in a nutshell

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

Description

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

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

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

How does the format work?

The recruitment process was structured in following phases:

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

Challenges

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

Tasks and resources

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

Scientists

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

Knowledge exchange managers and research managers

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

Policymakers

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

Key features in a nutshell

• High Impact, Lean Setup: Proves that institutional policy engagement does not require a massive infrastructure: a dedicated team of 1-2 full-time equivalents can connect hundreds of researchers and policymakers
• Full-Service Brokerage: Minimizes administrative burdens for researchers and policymakers by handling logistics, identification of science–policy topics, match-making, and stakeholder mapping
• Building science for policy skills: The policy engagement unit has facilitated numerous workshops on science for policy skills and careers in policy institutions; it also provides how-to guides on various aspects of policy engagement
• Proven Track Record: Since 2016, facilitated over 3,500 bilateral meetings (connecting 400 policymakers with 850 researchers), organized 42 policy events, and trained over 400 researchers

How does the unit work?

Initially launched in 2016 as the office for the Mercator Science-Policy Fellowship-Programme, the the unit evolved into a permanent, central Science–Policy Interface. By securing additional grants (e.g., from the EU and the German Federal Ministry of Research), it broadened its scope into a full-fledged service unit for the three partner universities.

Today, the unit operates across three core pillars:

1. Matchmaking & Science–Policy Dialogue

• Targeted Matchmaking: Acts as a single point of contact (one-stop shop). When policymakers need academic expertise, the unit maps relevant researchers. Conversely, when researchers wish to reach decision-makers, the unit leverages its network.

• Format Facilitation: Coordinates everything from 1:1 meetings to lab visits, multi-stakeholder workshops, panel discussions on topics like AI, climate change, medicine of the future, social cohesion, populism, cybersecurity, social inequality, and environmental law in the Frankfurt/Rhine-Main area, Berlin, and Brussels.

2. Capacity Building & Skills Training

• Workshops: Delivers interactive sessions on policy engagement, navigating political institutions, and career paths in policymaking institutions; the policy engagement unit has facilitated 17 workshops on science for policy skills and careers in policy institutions with more than 400 researchers participating

• Resources: Authors practical guides and toolkits (including the ENGAGEgreen Policy Engagement Toolkit) to equip researchers with actionable advice

3. Strategic Integration into Research Grants

• Early-Stage Cocreation: Encourages researchers to involve policymakers right from the proposal stage, helping refine research questions, identify policy relevance early, and secure funding dedicated to impact and dissemination; many researchers still regard policy engagement as a one-way street and do not feel that their research can benefit from engaging with policymakers by learning about new perspectives, topics, research questions, or hypotheses; many policy engagement activities, like policy events, take place at the end of projects; by conducting policy engagement early on, researchers can both maximize the benefit of the policy engagement for their research as well as the possible impact on policymaking by staying in touch with policymakers throughout the research projects rather than at the end

Key takeaways for your institution

• Start lean, not big: You don’t need a large department to begin; a single fellowship program or project grant can be the seed for a permanent structure;. our unit started as a one-off Mercator-funded fellowship office in 2016
• Take logistics off researchers’ plates: The single biggest lever for researcher participation is removing organizational friction; if your institution handles scheduling, room bookings, travel, and catering centrally, researchers are far more likely to say yes to policy engagement.
• Tell researchers support structures and funding exist for this: Many researchers are not aware of support structures at their institutions; also, many researchers simply don’t know that policy engagement activities can be funded as part of their grants; a short, proactive briefing on funding lines for engagement and dissemination can unlock activity that would otherwise never happen

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

Research managers and knowledge mobilisers

The unit has a dedicated team of one to two staff to connect researchers and policymakers. Staff are regularly in touch with both groups to identify topics for policy events and to organize bilateral meetings as well as policy events.

Researchers

The unit usually approaches researchers about participating as experts in one-to-one meetings with policymakers or at policy events. Because the unit handles organizational matters – scheduling, room bookings, travel, catering – researchers can focus on content rather than logistics. Researchers also approach the unit when they need contacts in policymaking institutions.

Policymakers

The unit regularly invites policymakers to take part in dialogue formats at the Rhine-Main Universities. Most either attend policy events such as workshops or lab visits or spend up to two days at the universities conducting face-to-face meetings with researchers. Policymakers also approach the unit when they need expertise, in which case the unit identifies suitable experts at the Rhine-Main Universities.

Sources and further reading

Sandevski, Tome (2023), How the Rhine-Main Universities promote knowledge exchange between researchers and policymakers via face-to-face meetings (accessed on 10 July 2026).

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

Key features in a nutshell

Getting a Community of Practice off the ground is not a complex undertaking – yet it requires some first steps and regular commitment by everyone involved. In the case of our Community in the area of Policy Engagement, it proved especially productive to focus on practical knowledge and working level interactions as well as achievable goals.

• Overall, Communities of Practice can be an essential part of enabling a dynamic, innovative, resilient, and agile network on a national level (and beyond).
• Our Community of Practice focuses on practical testing, implementation, and further development of formats, methods, and structures in the field of science-policy engagement in Germany. Our goal is to integrate scientific insights into political processes in a way that ensures their practical relevance, thereby contributing to evidence-informed decision making.
• Our Community of Practice integrates a wide array of practitioners from different institutions within the German science system and related areas, reflecting an interdisciplinary diversity of practices. This allows us to promote the importance of science-policy interactions and evidence-informed advice in various institutional and political settings.
• Focus on doable activities such as regular meetings, webinars, participation in conferences as well as exchanges regarding formats, methods, as well as addressing stakeholders or funding possibilities.

How does the format or structure work? / What is the crosscutting issue?

The German Community of Practice on Policy Engagement works as a loose but active network of individuals all coming from the science-policy interface. It started as an initiative of the Federal Ministry of Research, Technology, and Space with some funding for in person meetings and events and quickly developed a life of its own with very engaged and active members of the group taking up activities.

It follows a quite open structure: we have a ‘letter of commitment’ which outlines the basic understanding of policy engagement, the motivation to be part of the Community as well as an obligation that all outputs and results of the group are handled collaboratively. The Community also has an active coordinator who sets up monthly online meetings with specific agenda points and time frames, recruits and manages (new) members, sets up an infrastructure (e.g., shared working documents) and deals with internal and external communication. Smaller working groups within the Community take on concrete activities such as webinars, conference submissions, as well as sessions or forums and stakeholder meetings.

We have an active LinkedIn group with over 430 members to reach a wider audience beyond the core Community. Additionally, the core group aims to meet in person annually.

Since our Community of Practice has started working, the following concrete activities have been initiated:

(1) Regular webinars on topics such as impact, altmetrics, science-policy toolkits, communication methods (2) Organisation of an interagency forum with 28 policymakers from 20 federal ministries and institutions (3) Planning of workshops during various conferences (e.g., 2026 Conference of the Research Institute Social Cohesion in Frankfurt or the 2026 Forum Wissenschaftkommunikation in Leipzig)

Possible Challenges and How to Address Them

A main challenge is time commitment since the group is not an institutionalised one with designated staff or working hours. Therefore, activities should be aimed to fit ones already being done within projects or other institutional activities as well as (research) interests. Also, providing clear benefits such as knowledge exchange, practical insights, and ‘tips and tricks’ can help support the continuous participation of Community members. A further challenge is to find a dedicated coordinator who has the capacity to manage the Community over a certain amount of time.

Tasks and Resources

For knowledge exchange officers / research managers:

• Members of the Community: individuals working in the area of knowledge exchange who are part of the Community of Practice should regularly take part in the online meetings as well as the webinars; ideally, they should also be active regarding specific topics and in smaller working groups that develop and execute certain activities; the time invested for this is about one or one and a half days a month
• Coordinator: the person managing the Community should be ready and able to invest more time and effort; the coordination as well as communication of the Community is a key task for ensuring that activities can take place and that there is follow-up; also, the coordinator should be willing to interact and cooperate with people

References

Bundesministerium für Forschung, Technologie und Raumfahrt (2025), #Factory WissKomm Edition 2 Umsetzung, Ergebnisse und Neue Perspektiven. Policy Engagement. pp. 51-58.

Linkedin group: https://www.linkedin.com/groups/13163380/ (Mainly in German)

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

Interview with Professor Reyn van Ewijk (Chair of Statistics and Econometrics at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz)

Prof. Dr. Reyn van Ewijk is Professor of Statistics and Econometrics at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz. He has a background in economics, psychology, and epidemiology. In his research, he uses econometric statistical methods, in particular so-called natural experiments, to study human health. He uses large databases such as biobanks and registry data.

Professor von Ewijk, in the summer of 2021 you provided the German Academy of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine / an umbrella organization for pediatric and adolescent medical societies with information for a statement for the Federal Constitutional Court. How did the contact come about?

At that time, I was active in the COVID-19 Public Health Competence Network as a representative of the German Society for Health Economics. Within this network, I came into contact with a representative of the German Society for Social Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. The pediatricians were interested in the economic impact of pandemic-related measures in schools. I provided input on this, and later the German Society for Social Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine was asked by the German Academy of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine to contribute to a statement to the Federal Constitutional Court regarding the ban on in-person classes. I also provided some advice on this.

Did you have the necessary information at hand when you received the request, or did you have to do more research yourself?

At the time, I had already given a few lectures on the short- and long-term consequences of school closures and was quite familiar with the existing scientific literature on this topic. I had also started my own research project, together with some colleagues, in which we investigated how school openings in Germany after the 2021 summer vacation affected incidence rates. Thus, I was deeply familiar with the topic and only had to spend a little extra time gathering more information and evidence.

At the end of 2021, you published an analysis on the containment effect of schools on the spread of Sars-Cov-2. What was the key message of your analysis?

We analyzed the impact of school openings on the spread of Sars-Cov-2 based on different times for the ending of the summer vacation in German federal states. School openings initially led to a brief increase in infection numbers as asymptomatic cases were detected through testing. Subsequently, opening schools under strict hygiene measures and mandatory testing led to decreasing infection rates. This shows that schools can contribute to pandemic control under certain conditions. School closures, on the other hand, can make the important monitoring of infection rates more difficult and should only be used as a last resort due to the serious consequences for children.

The topic of school closures during the Covid-19 pandemic has been the subject of much controversy in Germany. Were you worried that your study would push you into a political corner?

At that time, it was clear from all the scientific literature – both before and during the pandemic – that school closures lead to significant learning losses, especially in Germany, where the digital infrastructure in schools was poor and made distance learning difficult. Such effects are particularly strong among socially weaker groups and reinforce social inequality. In addition, school closures have long-term negative consequences for health, income, attitudes towards society, etc. In Germany, we had a very effective system for testing and hygiene measures in schools. Against this background, it was more important to me to bring our results and the message they conveyed into the discussion than to worry about being pushed into a political corner.

Did the media pick up on their findings?

Our work was picked up and discussed by several newspapers, including Die Welt and Bild, as well as by radio stations and on online news.

Have you received any feedback from policymakers?

We had no direct contact with politicians. Nevertheless, they have probably heard about our research in the media or in a policy report we wrote. Policymakers base their decisions and the content of their communication on many different influencing factors. They do not always mention these factors explicitly, and even if they do, we do not always find out about them. Therefore, we cannot know exactly if and how our research has influenced policy. However, one media report suggests that we have had at least some influence, as the Minister of Education of Bavaria explicitly referred to our work when he promised to do everything possible to keep schools open.

Tome Sandevski (Goethe-University Frankfurt) conducted this interview.

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

Case Study on the Local Health Contracts in France and in the context of the SHAPE-med@Lyon project

What is the format about

A local health contract is an agreement between a local authority (city, metropolitan area, community of municipalities) and the Regional Health Agency. The objective is to adapt public health policies to the real needs of the local population, taking into account their specific characteristics. This multistakeholder governance model is central to the link between research and policy.

There are two priority objectives for local areas:

=> To reduce social and territorial health inequalities

=> To implement solutions for local healthcare provision.

The local health contracts (CLS) contribute to the development of local health dynamics. They enable the Regional Health Agency’s project to be aligned with the expectations of local authorities in order to implement actions that are as close as possible to the population.

Unlike major national strategies, local health contracts operate on the local level, aiming to reduce social and regional health inequalities and improve access to care.

How does it work

The Local Health Contract operates primarily on the basis of a shared regional diagnosis. Local stakeholders, universities (including scientists), healthcare professionals, associations, and residents participate in analyzing the health situation: the population’s state of health, living conditions, access to care, etc. This diagnosis makes it possible to define priorities for activity that is tailored to current conditions on the local level.

Once the strategy has been established, the local authority and the Regional Health Agency sign a contract that is valid for an average of five years. The contract covers several strategic areas (prevention, mental health, environmental health, youth health, etc.) and sets out a series of practical actions.

In Lyon, for example, the Local Health Contract for 2022-27 presents more than 40 actions organized around four main areas and a cross-cutting focus on environmental health.

The Local Health Contracts are managed by a steering committee that includes representatives from the city, the Regional Health Agency, and the partners involved, while scientific bodies (such as the Local Health Scientific Council in Lyon) provide independent expertise.

Challenges and how to address them

Implementing a Local Health Contract raises several challenges:

The first one is Concertation, because bringing together institutions, associations, residents, and researchers in one place requires a considerable capacity for coordination.  This concertation is generally organized by the local authorities and the regional health agency.

Furthermore, priorities are not always shared, and a balance must be found between political demands and scientific realities.  Researchers are essential for providing data-based expertise, helping analyze regional health determinants, and evaluating the impact of actions taken. Their key mission is to ensure methodological rigor and to provide scientific knowledge for public decision making.

Another challenge concerns knowledge of the region, as this requires a solid diagnosis. There are, of course, funding limitations, as the Local Health Contracts is based on a multiannual contract, while local authority budgets can change with political cycles.

Finally, the evaluation of the efficiency of a local health policy requires tools shared between partners.

These difficulties help to explain why the SHAPE-med@lyon project in Lyon was created, which aims to bring together research, innovation, and regional leadership. The goal is to support the Local Heath Contracts with scientific data to build a shared culture of evaluation.

Tasks and resources

The success of a Local Health Contract relies on a number of coordinated stages:

First, there is a mobilization phase in which the various stakeholders commit to working together to build the project. This dynamic partnership, particularly between researchers and policymakers, is essential to guarantee sustainability beyond political cycles.

Then, a local diagnosis is carried out by both the local authorities and the regional health agency with the researchers’ expertise, combining all types of data. Based on this diagnosis, the steering committee defines priority areas and targets for action: these will be assigned to specific managers, with dedicated resources and identified managers.

Once the contract is signed, operational implementation begins: coordination between institutions, launch of actions, etc.

Among the examples of action, we can highlight SONAR@lyon, a Nature-Based Solutions Observatory that uses a One Health Approach in the Lyon metropolitan area, a project supervised by Ms. Caillaud from Lumière University: https://greps.univ-lyon2.fr/projets/projets-nationaux/sonarlyon

Throughout the process, regular reviews allow for adjustments to be made to the measures, certain things to be corrected, and successes to be built on.

Ressources 

https://www.univ-lyon2.fr/universite/shape-medlyon

https://www.ars.sante.fr/les-contrats-locaux-de-sante

https://www.lyon.fr/actions-et-projets/les-plans-daction-strategiques/le-contrat-local-de-sante

Summary: Key features in a nutshell

• Long-term engagement built around regional governance structures rather than single events
• Regular interaction between researchers, policymakers, and local stakeholders
• Combination of online coordination, in-person meetings, and public-facing activities
• Strong institutional anchoring within the University of Granada and its social innovation strategy

Description

Sustained engagement refers to the ability to maintain long-term, continuous, and meaningful interaction between researchers, policymakers, and societal actors beyond isolated dialogue events. Within the framework of the Erasmus + ENGAGEgreen project, the UGR County Councils represent a governance-oriented approach designed to embed science-policy dialogue into regional structures, ensuring continuity over time. Rather than relying on one-off consultations, this model seeks to institutionalize engagement as a permanent process, aligned with regional priorities and supported by the University of Granada (UGR).

How does the format work?

The sustained engagement model of the UGR County Councils operates as a progressive and cumulative process. Regional challenges are jointly identified with local governments and stakeholders and then connected to relevant research expertise within the university. Engagement is maintained through recurring meetings, thematic working sessions, preparatory online workshops, and large-scale dialogue events such as the Impronta Granada Meetings. Digital tools support continuity by preserving institutional memory, ensuring visibility of actors and projects, and enabling ongoing interaction between events. Over time, this format allows relationships to mature and trust to be built, which is essential for effective science-policy collaboration.

Challenges

Achieving sustained engagement in science-policy dialogue is inherently challenging. One of the main difficulties lies in maintaining long-term commitment by both researchers and policymakers whose priorities, workloads, and institutional contexts may change over time. Political cycles, staff turnover, and limited incentives for academic engagement can disrupt continuity. Additionally, sustained engagement requires moving beyond short-term outputs and accepting that impact often emerges gradually, which may conflict with expectations for immediate results. Addressing these challenges requires stable coordination structures, institutional support, and clear long-term objectives.

Tasks and resources

Scientists

• Tasks
  • Contribute research expertise aligned with regional challenges identified through the UGR County Councils
  • Participate in recurring dialogue activities (meetings, workshops, consultations) over time
  • Adapt research outputs to policy-relevant formats and long-term territorial priorities
• Required Resources
  • Time allocated to sustained engagement beyond single events
  • Institutional recognition of science-policy dialogue activities
  • Communication and knowledge-sharing tools to interact with policymakers and stakeholders.

Knowledge exchange managers and research managers

• Tasks
  • Coordinate sustained interaction between researchers, policymakers, and regional stakeholders
  • Facilitate dialogue processes, preparatory meetings, and follow-up activities
  • Translate research outputs into accessible, policy-relevant formats
  • Ensure continuity, documentation, and institutional memory across political and academic cycles
• Required Resources
  • Dedicated staff time for coordination and facilitation
  • Digital platforms and tools to support communication, documentation, and visibility
  • Institutional support to maintain long-term engagement structures

Policymakers

• Tasks
  • Identify and articulate medium- and long-term regional needs
  • Engage regularly with researchers through the UGR County Councils framework
  • Integrate research-based insights into local strategies and policy processes.
• Required Resources
  • Time for participation in ongoing dialogue processes
  • Political and administrative support to ensure continuity across policy cycles
  • Access to synthesized research evidence relevant to territorial decision-making

How is the format conducted?

Sustained engagement within the UGR County Councils is conducted through a sequence of recurring activities that combine preparatory online meetings, in-person dialogue events, and continuous coordination between the University of Granada and regional actors. Interaction is distributed over time through periodic meetings, thematic working sessions, and large-scale encounters such as the Impronta Granada Meetings. This approach allows relationships between researchers, policymakers, and other stakeholders to mature gradually, supporting trust-building, shared learning, and the progressive alignment of research expertise with regional priorities.

Available resources (what are the main tasks?)

Researchers contribute by sharing ongoing research aligned with territorial challenges and by participating in dialogue processes over time. Knowledge exchange managers and research managers coordinate interaction between actors, facilitate meetings, translate research outputs into accessible formats, and ensure continuity and documentation across political and academic cycles. Policymakers articulate regional priorities, participate regularly in dialogue activities, and integrate research-based insights into local strategies and decision-making processes. The format relies on sustained coordination capacity, institutional support from the University of Granada, and digital tools that enable communication, visibility, and follow-up.

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

What works is the progressive consolidation of the UGR County Councils as stable governance structures for science-policy dialogue. During 2025, several milestones demonstrated growing participation, institutional anchoring, and public visibility. The initiative was officially launched in January 2025 at the First Impronta Granada Meeting, bringing together more than 80 UGR researchers and local representatives. In July 2025, the First County Councils Regional Meeting (Costa Tropical) strengthened cross-council dialogue, showcased ongoing projects, and fostered closer cooperation between municipalities and researchers. Two interactive working sessions held in November 2025 enabled representatives of the ten councils to review priorities, share knowledge, and prepare the December meeting. These efforts culminated in the Second Impronta Granada Meeting (December 2025, Loja), a major in-person gathering with thematic working tables on mobility, rural women, employment, agriculture, and sustainability, consolidating the Councils as an active governance network. Complementary scientific and regional activities, such as seminars addressing concrete local needs, further reinforced the regional ecosystem.

From a communication perspective, sustained engagement is reinforced by the use of institutional communication channels managed by Medialab UGR, Social Innovation Lab of the University of Granada, such as the Impronta Granada website, social media profiles (Medialab UGR’s LinkedIn  account, Impronta Granada’s Instagram account, Medialab UGR’s Instagram account, Medialab X’s account, Impronta Granada’s X account), and audio dissemination channels (Radiolab UGR’s Spreaker Account and Radiolab UGR’s Spotify account. As these channels are structurally embedded within the University, they remain active beyond the duration of individual projects, contributing to the long-term sustainability of the initiative. Participants regularly use these platforms to disseminate activities, announce science-policy dialogue events, and share territorial initiatives related to research and public decision making. This continuous use of shared communication spaces strengthens visibility, facilitates coordination among actors, and supports the consolidation of the UGR County Councils as a permanent science-policy interface at the territorial level.

Continuing challenges are sustaining long-term engagement in the face of academic workloads, changing political cycles, and the need for stable incentives and institutional support to ensure continuity beyond individual events.

How the activities evaluated?

Evaluation of sustained engagement is structured around short-, medium-, and long-term objectives.

In the short term (by 2026), evaluation focuses on the consolidation of ten County Councils as stable governance structures representing all regions of Granada, the active participation of more than 200 stakeholders (including researchers, policymakers, businesspeople, and citizens), the creation of at least two pilot projects addressing regional priorities such as sustainable mobility, rural depopulation, cultural heritage, and agro-ecological innovation, and the strengthening of the institutional image of the University of Granada as a leader in social innovation and regional collaboration. These aspects are assessed through participation data and impact evaluation surveys.

In the medium term (2026–2030), evaluation looks at the creation of Impronta Regional Development Centers in collaboration with the Diputación de Granada, the integration of the County Councils as a permanent advisory and cooperation mechanism within the University’s governance model, the increased inclusion of regional challenges in research, innovation, and teaching agendas, and the strengthening of alliances with regional and European institutions to cofund and scale initiatives.

In the long term (beyond 2030), evaluation focuses on the institutionalization of the County Councils as a transferable model of university-community collaboration, the consolidation and expansion of the Impronta Regional Development Centers as long-term infrastructural nodes for regional innovation and civic collaboration, and their contribution to the Sustainable Development Goals and the Andalusian Smart Specialization Strategy, embedding sustainability and participation into public decision making.

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

Description

The Public Factory is a structure that opened in Lyon at the start of the 2018 academic year. The Public Factory offers modular, user-friendly spaces for student and teaching communities, as well as local stakeholders (government departments, local authorities, businesses, associations). The Public Factory is made up of a range of spaces where people can meet, get together, and take part in events, as well as learning, sharing, and debating.

What is the format about?

Its aim is to develop a scientific, artistic, and civic program in line with the activities of the school, Science Po Lyon and its Foundation, but it was also created on the basis of a Political Science teaching program designed to involve fourth-year students in concrete and complex issues of general interest to which the humanities and social sciences can provide useful food for thought and answers.

The aim of the Public Factory is to create links between students, researchers, policymakers (state, local and hospital civil servants, institutions, elected representatives), semi-public and socioeconomic players around issues of transforming public action. The University of Lyon 2, the IAE Lyon 3, the ENS, and the University of Lyon also participate by mobilizing their students for certain projects while developing a science, arts, and civic program linked to the activities of the school, Science Po Lyon and its Foundation.

Over a period of six years, the Public Factory has carried out nearly 50 projects involving more than 300 students and 40 different partners. Every year, around a hundred students work with local authorities, government departments, businesses, and associations that are committed to tackling issues of public interest.

How does the format work?

Public Factory projects are carried out in the form of action training. They are based on phases of research and immersion in the field, enabling students to meet the various players involved in or impacted by the theme of the project. This is a pedagogical method of in-situation training with an enhanced creative and professional dimension. The common theme is the action-research approach to teaching by Kurt Lewin.

More concretely, here are the different steps in a Public Factory project

1) Each year, there is a call for expressions of interest concerning public policy projects.

When the request is received, the problem is approached and rethought in consultation with the teams at the Public Factory and the lecturers. This is the step of collaborative work and redefinition of the scope of intervention and expectations.

Parallel to this, students form groups of eight to ten students from September to April (out of a total of around 100 students).

2) The central idea is to immerse the project teams in the field to understand how the various stakeholders experience the chosen problem. Parallel to this, the project teams draw up a literature review to guide their work through the literature relevant to their subject.

3) Finally, a feedback session is organized for each project, giving the students the opportunity to present their conclusions and recommendations to all the partners, teachers, and professionals present. Each year, we can count on around 15 projects for around 100 students. The results of the work are free, as the Public Factory wishes to be part of the knowledge commons.

Examples

Public Factory website: https://www.sciencespo-lyon.fr/public-factory/

Projects for the year 2025-26: sciencespo-lyon.fr/public-factory/dispositif-pedagogique/projets-de-lannee-en-cours-2/

Sources and further reading

Action-Research and Kurt Lewin: https://cedrea.net/La-demarche-de-recherche-action-une-rupture-epistemologique

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