Case Study of the Second Impronta Granada meeting and Poniente Workshop

Summary: Key features in a nutshell:

• Objective: To successfully recruit researchers from the University of Granada (UGR) for collaborative territory-oriented projects with local governments, businesses, and civil society in the Poniente Granadino region.
• Key Strategies
  • Online preparatory meetings to identify the most pressing regional challenges such as sustainable tourism, heritage preservation, and economic development and map existing research capacity
  • A curated Excel database compiling University of Granada’s researchers, projects and their associated County Council
  • Creation of actor profiles on the Impronta Granada website to improve the visibility of researchers and their alignment with specific County Councils
  • Use of UGR project entries on the website to highlight ongoing research projects, categorized by UGR County Councils and geolocated on an interactive map
  • Micropresentations (short talks) at the Second Impronta Granada Meeting showcasing selected research projects before the main Poniente workshop
• Outcome: Enhanced researcher engagement; improved transparency of expertise; alignment between academic research and territorial development priorities; better informed, evidence‑based debate during the workshop

Description

Recruiting researchers from Universidad de Granada (UGR) to participate in regional governance and development initiatives is a key strategy to build a bridge between academic knowledge and local policy making.

UGR County Councils refers to the initiative led by the University of Granada (UGR) under the Erasmus+ ENGAGEgreen project, aiming to foster collaboration between academic researchers, local governments, and community stakeholders. This initiative focuses on addressing regional challenges through co-created, research-driven solutions. The Second Impronta Granada Meeting is the third pilot event organised by UGR as part of this project, bringing together researchers, policymakers, and local communities to discuss and develop strategies for sustainable development in rural and urban areas.

In the framework of the Second Impronta Granada Meeting (2 December 2025), through prior online preparatory meetings with UGR County Councils and the subsequent in‑person ‘Poniente Workshop’, researchers were actively integrated into a multi‑stakeholder process.

To operationalise this, an internal Medialab UGR compiled an internal Excel database – listing ongoing research projects, names of researchers, their associated County Council (comarca) and project status— which then served to design and schedule micropresentations of such projects during the in‑person event. The Excel registry was not a static tool but was continuously maintained and updated throughout the process to reflect confirmed participation, thematic relevance, and the evolving alignment between research projects and territorial needs. This mechanism fostered visibility, facilitated researcher‑stakeholder matching, and helped frame the workshop’s agenda around academically grounded proposals. The recruitment process was supported by creating actor profiles and listing UGR projects on the Impronta Granada website, where researchers and their ongoing work were made visible and accessible. These profiles allowed stakeholders from different sectors to identify relevant researchers for collaboration, and also to explore geolocated UGR projects that align with regional development needs.

How does the format work?

The recruitment of UGR researchers for the Poniente Workshop followed a clear and structured process:

1. Identification of needs & existing research

a. During the online preparatory meetings organised by by Medialab UGR within the framework of the Impronta Granada initiative, with various UGR County Councils (including those from Poniente), local actors and UGR researchers discussed regional challenges such as sustainable tourism, heritage preservation, economic revitalisation, demographic decline, migration, rural depopulation, cultural heritage protection, as well as green and digital transition issues, including climate adaptation, sustainable land use and the digitalisation of local services.

b. Concurrently, researchers presented ongoing investigations they were carrying out in the province of Granada, particularly in rural and comarca-based contexts (e.g., archaeology, sociology, environmental studies, heritage, tourism).

c. The outcomes of these meetings were recorded in a structured Excel spreadsheet, including researcher names, project titles, their associated comarca, and project status. This tool enabled mapping research capacity to territorial needs and selecting which researchers could contribute to specific themes.

2. Active recruitment and visibility

a. Based on the Excel registry, Medialab UGR, within the framework of the Impronta Granada initiative, invited selected researchers to produce micropresentations to be delivered during the Second Impronta Granada meeting – before the main Poniente Workshop – giving them a platform to present their work to a broader audience of stakeholders (policymakers, civil society actors, local businesses).

b. Researchers were actively invited to collaborate by presenting their projects on the Impronta Granada website, where their research topics were categorised by UGR County Council and linked to relevant regional development initiatives. The actor profiles feature detailed information about the researchers and the UGR County Councils they belong to, which greatly facilitated the recruitment process.

Actor profiles: Researchers and other actors listed with affiliation, role, and County Council membership. The directory can be filtered by institution (University of Granada), profile (research center), and County Council affiliation on the Impronta Granada website: Impronta Granada Actor Profiles.

UGR project entries: a catalogue of research projects geolocated on a map and categorised by County Council, allowing users to see which investigations are active in which comarcas: UGR Projects in County Councils.

3. Micropresentations as Engagement Trigger

At the Second Impronta Granada meeting (Loja, 2 December 2025) – prior to the thematic Workshop for Poniente – a set of researchers presented short five-minute pitches about their projects. These micropresentations included visual material (maps, images, diagrams, etc.), introducing research outputs to non‑academic stakeholders and grounding workshop debates in empirical evidence. Among them:

• La voz de las torres – The Voice of the Towers (Ana García)
• El patrimonio arqueológico en la comarca del Poniente de Granada: desde su investigación hasta su difusión – Archaeological Heritage in the Poniente de Granada Region: From Research to Dissemination (Luca Mattei)
• Excavación en la Mesa de Fornes – Excavation at Mesa de Fornes (Andrés Androher)
• El “heheo” en el Poniente Granadino: un estudio sociolingüístico – The “Heheo” in the Poniente Granadino Region: A Sociolinguistic Study (María Cardenete)
• Estación biológica de campo de la UGR “La Resinera” – UGR Field Biological Station “La Resinera” (Juan M. Pleguezuelos)
• Volver a los Orígenes siendo Original – Returning to the Origins While Being Original (Eva Moreno Castillo)

4. Integration into the workshop discussion

After the micropresentations, the Poniente mesa de trabajo enabled a dialogue between researchers, policymakers, civil society, and local business representatives, facilitating co‑design of proposals and potential alignment of academic research with territorial plans for the Poniente region.

Challenges

●        Diversity of research profiles. Not all projects listed in the Excel database corresponded to active researchers; some belonged to other participating agents. This occurred because the initial registry was compiled using information gathered from open calls, preparatory meetings, and existing territorial project records, which included contributions from a wide range of actors. A subsequent verification process was therefore required to identify and prioritise research-active profiles.

●        Disparity of research themes vs. local needs. Some research lines (e.g., highly theoretical or disciplinary) did not fit neatly into actionable local policies or heritage/tourism proposals – requiring adaptation or translation into practical proposals.

●        Time & motivation constraints. Research staff face teaching and administrative duties which can limit their availability. In this case, the Excel registry and the online publication of researcher profiles were compiled and made available several weeks in advance of the Second Impronta Granada Meeting, which allowed for initial engagement but proved insufficient to guarantee long-term involvement beyond the event. Sustaining participation therefore requires greater anticipation as well as continued institutional and logistical support.

●        Visibility & communication. While the website and micropresentations improved exposure, ensuring that local government and civil society consistently consulted and used the registry requires ongoing effort and outreach. Promotion of the registry was mainly carried out through direct communication with local councils during preparatory meetings, presentations at the Second Impronta Granada Meeting, and targeted follow-up emails sharing links to the actor profiles and UGR project entries. Even though researchers’ profiles were created and UGR projects were listed on the Impronta Granada website, the visibility of these profiles needed more promotion within local councils and the broader community. Additionally, the active involvement of researchers in local projects requires clear communication and motivation to contribute to territorial development.

Tasks and resources

Scientists

• Tasks
  • Prepare and deliver micropresentations
  • Provide research data and visual materials relevant to regional issues
  • Engage in follow-up collaborative projects with local actors

• Required resources

  • Time allocation for research‑to‑action translation
  • Support materials (maps, visuals, data)
  • Ethical and institutional backing from UGR

Knowledge exchange managers and research managers

• Tasks

  • Maintain and update the Excel registry
  • Manage the “Actor Profiles” and “UGR Project Entries” on the Impronta Granada website.
  • Organize the micropresentation session
  • Facilitate communication between researchers and local stakeholders

• Required resources

  • Database and website maintenance tools
  • Logistical and technical support for events (venue, audiovisual equipment), follow-up communications

Policymakers

• Tasks

  • Attend micropresentations and workshops
  • Identify research relevance for local policies and projects
  • Provide feedback and possibly resources to support research-based initiatives

• Required resources

  • Institutional time allocation
  • Budgeting for pilot initiatives or collaborations
  • Channels for integrating research insights into municipal planning

Examples

1. Actor Profiles:

• On the Impronta Granada website, the Actor Profiles directory enables filtering by institution, which helps researchers gain visibility and connect with local stakeholders
• Example: Francisco Antonio Navarro Valverde – a researcher affiliated with UGR, listed under the UGR County Council of Poniente Granadino: Francisco Navarro Profile

2. UGR Projects Listed by County Councils:

• The UGR Project Entries catalogue, geolocated by County Council, allows users to see where each research initiative is active – building a regional map of academic engagement and potential impact.
• Example: UGR Archaeology Project.

3. The micropresentation session during the Second Impronta Granada meeting preceded the main Poniente Workshop, ensuring that researchers’ findings informed the debate and project proposals. According to the UGR news report, the event brought together institutional representatives, researchers, social agents, businesses, and citizens to tackle the main regional challenges with a focus on innovation, sustainability, and cultural/ecological wealth.

Sources and further reading

• Impronta Granada Website – Impronta Granada Actor Profiles and UGR Projects in County Councils.
• Official coverage of the Second Impronta Granada meeting – University and Territory event: https://improntagranada.es/impronta/ii-impronta-granada-meeting-strengthens-the-university-territory-alliance-in-loja/

Case study details:

How was the format implemented?

The Poniente Workshop was preceded by two online preparatory meetings where UGR researchers and local stakeholders discussed regional challenges like sustainable tourism, heritage preservation, and economic development. An Excel database was created by Medialab UGR to map research expertise to specific territorial challenges, categorising projects by research topics, researcher affiliation, and the county council. This data laid the foundation for micropresentations at the Second Impronta Granada meeting, where selected researchers presented their work with visual materials to a broad audience, including local governments, businesses, and civil society.

In addition, researchers and projects were showcased on the Impronta Granada website, where actor profiles were created to highlight researchers’ expertise and county council affiliation, while UGR project entries were listed and geolocated, making it easy to connect researchers to local needs.

Available resources (main tasks)

●        Research dissemination. The Impronta Granada website served as a key tool for ensuring that UGR projects were visible and accessible. UGR project entries were created on the website, organised by UGR County Councils, which helped align academic research with local needs. These project entries were geolocated on an interactive map, allowing stakeholders to see exactly where research initiatives were being carried out in the Granada region.

●        Knowledge sharing. Micropresentations allowed researchers to directly engage with stakeholders by presenting their findings in an accessible format. These sessions facilitated cross-sector collaboration, ensuring that researchers were not only sharing knowledge but also learning from local needs and identifying areas of common interest.

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

What works

●        The Excel database was a successful tool in organising and categorising UGR research projects, making it easier to match researchers with local challenges

●        Actor profiles on the Impronta Granada website helped raise the visibility of researchers and foster collaboration between research institutions and local stakeholders

●        Micropresentations were effective in engaging a diverse audience, helping to bridge the gap between academic research and local policymaking by showcasing research projects alongside real-world applications

What doesn’t

●        Sustained engagement from researchers beyond the event remains challenging due to their academic workload and time constraints. Ensuring that these collaborations continue after the initial workshop requires dedicated follow-up activities and institutional support.

●        While the micropresentations facilitated initial engagement, the challenge lies in ensuring the long-term involvement of researchers in the implementation phase of local projects.

How  are the activities evaluated?

●        Feedback surveys were conducted to assess the effectiveness of the micropresentations and the research participation in the Poniente Workshop.

●        Follow-up surveys will be necessary to evaluate the long-term impact of research-driven solutions and the extent to which they have been implemented in local policy and community development.

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

Communication and Dissemination Strategies through Medialab UGR and Impronta Granada

Summary: Key features in a nutshell

• Integrated communication ecosystem: cross-media approach combining institutional websites, social networks, and local press
• Branded dissemination materials: merchandising (personalized notebooks, roll-ups, visual identity) for regional events
• Continuous digital storytelling: regular updates on Medialab UGR and Impronta Granada platforms, including dedicated ENGAGEgreen sections
• Press and audiovisual coverage: news pieces in IDEAL and Granada Hoy, YouTube webinars, and participation in European conferences
• Citizen media participation: invitation for UGR County Councils members to record podcasts at Radiolab UGR to showcase territorial initiatives

Description

This contribution explores how the University of Granada (UGR), through Medialab UGR and Impronta Granada, develops and implements innovative dissemination strategies to promote science-policy dialogue formats. Within the Erasmus+ ENGAGEgreen project (WP5 – Dissemination and Civic Engagement), the UGR combines digital communication, traditional media outreach, and participatory storytelling to increase the visibility, credibility, and public engagement of initiatives such as the UGR County Councils and the Impronta Granada Meetings.

These communication actions reinforce UGR’s institutional commitment to open innovation and civic engagement, ensuring that dialogues between academia, policymakers, businesses, and citizens reach a wide audience both regionally and internationally.

How does the format work?

The dissemination strategy functions as a multichannel communication model coordinated by Medialab UGR. It follows a continuous cycle structured around three phases:

1. Preparation and branding:
   

   Development of a visual identity and physical materials to accompany each policy dialogue event. For the launch of the UGR County Councils (20 January 2025), UGR produced personalized notebooks containing project information, roll-ups for visibility, and coordinated catering services to enhance participant experience.

2. Media publication and digital amplification:

• Publication of press releases on both the Medialab UGR website (ugr.es/proyecto/engagegreen) and the Impronta Granada portal (improntagranada.es/category/engage-green).
• Creation of a dedicated microsite for UGR County Councils (es/consejoscomarcalesugr), where participants, municipalities, and researchers are featured.
• Social media dissemination through Instagram (@medialabugr, @improntagranada) and LinkedIn (Medialab UGR), using video reels, stories, and event highlights to sustain public engagement.

3. Public visibility and international reach:
   

   UGR promoted ENGAGEgreen across European forums, such as the Arqus Alliance BIP “Making the Planet a Healthier Place” (May 2025), the SAM Conference “Building Bridges: Shaping Europe’s Science-for-Policy Landscape” (Vienna, 26–27 May 2025), and the ENGAGEgreen Brussels event “Unlocking Science-Policy Synergies for Europe’s Green and Digital Future” (June 2025). These participations were accompanied by multilingual press releases and news coverage in Impronta Granada.

4. Citizen communication and creative media:
   

   UGR invites members of the UGR County Councils Living Labs to record podcasts at Radiolab UGR, a professional university recording studio. This initiative allows local stakeholders, researchers, and policymakers to share their projects and challenges with a broader audience, turning dissemination into a cocreated narrative that strengthens the “science for people” dimension of ENGAGEgreen.

Challenges

• Maintaining consistency of branding and visual identity across multiple channels
• Balancing scientific accuracy with accessible language for non-expert audiences
• Coordinating timing between local events, press deadlines, and EU-level communication
• Ensuring sustained engagement after the initial publicity peak
• Measuring real impact beyond quantitative indicators (likes, reach, and views)

Tasks and resources

Scientists

• Contribute content explaining research findings and territorial results in accessible language
• Participate in interviews, webinars, and podcasts to contextualize the project’s impact
• Review press materials to ensure factual accuracy and scientific credibility
• Engage in live communication (conferences, Arqus Alliance BIP, SAM Vienna, Brussels event) to reinforce visibility in academic and policy communities

Knowledge exchange managers and research managers

• Coordinate communication strategy and calendar for all ENGAGEgreen dissemination activities
• Produce, edit, and publish multimedia content (press releases, video reels, YouTube webinars)
• Manage relations with local and national printed press media (IDEAL, Granada Hoy)
• Oversee graphic design, branding, and event logistics (merchandising, signage, photography)
• Maintain web and social media analytics dashboards to monitor engagement trends

Policymakers

• Support visibility by participating in interviews and providing statements on collaboration outcomes
• Share ENGAGEgreen materials across institutional channels (municipalities, local development agencies)
• Encourage territorial dissemination through newsletters and local events

Examples

• 20 January 2025 – First Impronta Granada Meeting: Launch event with 143 participants; dissemination through Impronta Granada and Medialab UGR websites, featured in IDEAL and Granada Hoy, plus a full video recording available on YouTube
• 24 January 2025 – Press releases: Published on both institutional platforms and cross-posted via social media
• 9 May 2025 – Arqus Alliance Presentation: UGR introduced Living Labs to 25 students and six researchers from three European universities
• 26–27 May 2025 – SAM Vienna Conference: International visibility through coordinated session on “Universities and Municipalities Coproducing Solutions for Urban Transformation”
• 12 June 2025 – Brussels Conference: UGR led a session on “Water and Soil: From Research to Public Policies,” positioning ENGAGEgreen within the EU’s science-policy dialogue ecosystem
• Radiolab UGR: Ongoing invitation for County Council members to produce thematic podcasts showcasing territorial innovation and sustainability actions.

Case studies

A comprehensive publicity strategy combining print, digital, and audiovisual media resulted in broad provincial visibility and EU-level recognition. The integration of Radiolab UGR podcasts extended dissemination into community storytelling, strengthening civic ownership of science-policy dialogue processes.

How is the format implemented?

Dissemination planning begins two weeks before each event and continues for up to three months afterward. The Medialab communication team drafts press releases, coordinates publication schedules, and monitors engagement metrics. Key milestones are synchronized with Impronta Granada’s editorial calendar. Podcasts and YouTube webinars are released as follow-up communication to maintain public awareness and continuity.

Available resources (what are the main tasks)

• Institutional websites: ugr.es and improntagranada.es
• Official social media accounts: Instagram, LinkedIn, YouTube
• Press-release and branding templates
• Radiolab UGR recording studio and technical support
• Mailing lists and stakeholder database for targeted outreach

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

• Works: consistent visual identity; multichannel approach combining academic and public-facing content; early involvement of media in planning; use of audiovisual storytelling (reels, podcasts).
• Doesn’t: overreliance on one platform; insufficient coordination between event and post-event coverage; underestimation of time for content production.
• Lessons learnt: establish a publication timeline; integrate social media analytics into evaluation; ensure that every press release includes a direct quote and high-quality image; repurpose materials for European dissemination networks.

How are the activities evaluated?

• Outputs: Number of press releases (20+), social media posts (>40), and media mentions (2 major newspapers)
• Outcomes: Increased visibility of UGR’s Science-Policy dialogue formats; higher stakeholder engagement and replication interest in other universities
• Indicators: Website traffic, post reach, engagement rates, podcast audience statistics, press citations
• Timing: Continuous monitoring during 2025; reporting integrated into WP5 evaluation

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

About Mike Young

I am the founder of Mike Young Academy, a Copenhagen-based agency that offers workshops for researchers and science communication professionals, and social media audits for universities.

I am the former editor of the English-language University Post (2009-2016), a media hub for a community of reporting students and scientists in Copenhagen. Before this I worked for many years as both a journalist and as an experienced lecturer in media studies.

My book Social Media for Research Impact, co-authored with Marcel Bogers, was published by Routledge in January 2026.

Questions

• During the 2024 Research Communication Week organized by Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, you gave the workshop “Social Media for Researchers,” in which you presented a mindful approach to social media. How does this translate in research communication?

Mindful in this context means the following: researchers should use social media to let social media help their science, that is, disseminate their work, find people to work with, get new ideas, and collaborate with others. But they should not get drawn into the gamification and competition that the social media platforms themselves promote and that academia itself promotes in other contexts. This means not competing for engagement metrics like reach, followers, and attention. Social media should be used for your science, and ultimately for your professional satisfaction, not to brand yourself, or somehow win in a career game. This means using social media to reach, find, think with, and collaborate with singular new people and at your own pace, not trying to reach many people at the same time.

Beyond being mindful, scientists should be aware that there are ethical reasons for acting on social media. These can sometimes conflict with the mindful practices.

• Can social media amplify the policy impact of science?

Yes. Directly by scientists with specific expertise areas joining and helping to inform conversations about the specific policy-related issues that are related to, and surround, their own specific research area. Indirectly by helping to put their research and expertise into the conversations of key stakeholders like funders and government officials, etc.

• Can you give us a preview from your and Prof. Marcel Bogers’s upcoming book Social Media for Research Impact?

Social Media for Research Impact reviews the effects of the professional use of social media on science and scholarship, providing practical tips, tools, and guidelines for platforms, practices, and routines on social media for academics. It offers a series of case studies from researchers worldwide and illustrates the diverse and often unexpected ways social media enhances academic work, from building collaborative networks and expanding audience reach to creating real-world impact.

• Researchers and science communicators are leaving X (Twitter) for other microblogging platforms, what are the best alternatives? How could they curate feed and search and find the right influential members of the science community?

Bluesky looks to be the best alternative microblogging platform at present. Just like on X, you can set up lists of key people. Unlike X, they are, as a default, public, and this takes away part of their usefulness. What is good about Bluesky however, relative to X, is that you can have much more control of your newsfeed. This keeps your focus as a scientist, as you can almost free yourself of political posts, influencers, and marketers.

Starter packs on Bluesky are also an interesting new feature that allows people to share groups of influential sets of scientists and set up communities.

• Which tips would you give to researchers in need to connect and engage with journalists and policymakers?

In my workshops I have scientists set up specific routines or networking pathways to reach these two groups on LinkedIn and other social media.

The questions were asked by Giulia Ballarin (Ca’ Foscari University Venice)

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

Summary: Key features in a nutshell

• A European-level event co-organised by University of Granada (UGR) and BETA Technological Center (University of Vic) within the Erasmus+ ENGAGEgreen project
• Included representatives from the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (DG AGRI) of the European Commission, the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), and multiple universities and research institutes
• Combined a general debate, two roundtables (water & soil), and a poster session
• Focused on the implementation of the EU Soil Strategy 2030, Horizon Europe’s Soil Mission, and the Soil Monitoring Law
• Addressed both governance structures and science-policy knowledge transfer mechanisms
• Identified institutional gaps, emerging tools, and the role of social sciences and citizen engagement
• Highlighted the importance of inclusive dialogues involving academia, policymakers, and civil society
• Demonstrated the importance of Living Labs, transdisciplinary research, and participatory governance models

Description

This contribution presents a case study from the ENGAGEgreen Dissemination and Stakeholder Conference held on 12 June 2025 in Brussels. The session titled ‘Water and Soil: From Research to Public Policies for Environmental Protection’, co-organised by the University of Granada (UGR) and the BETA Technological Center of the University of Vic, brought together researchers, policy officers, and civil society actors to explore how science-policy interfaces can support more sustainable environmental governance in Europe. The session focused on two critical elements – water and soil – and addressed how scientific evidence, social sciences, and participatory governance can shape public policies aligned with ecological and social realities.

The roundtable on soil governance addressed a pressing challenge: how to accelerate knowledge transfer and institutional cooperation in the implementation of the EU Soil Strategy and the Soil Monitoring Law.

The session aimed to strengthen science-policy dialogue on soil and water governance on the European level by

• Creating a structured space for exchange between researchers, policymakers and civil society actors on soil and water governance
• Exploring how scientific evidence, social sciences, and participatory approaches can better inform EU environmental policies, particularly the EU Soil Strategy, the Soil Monitoring Law and the Horizon Europe Soil Mission
• Identifying barriers and gaps in current science-policy interfaces related to soil and water governance
• Highlighting existing tools and mechanisms for knowledge transfer used by the European Commission and EU-funded projects
• Promoting inclusive and transdisciplinary governance models, including the role of Living Labs and citizen engagement in soil and water policy design

How does the format work?

The session was structured around three parts:

1. A general discussion, where participants advocated for stronger links between science, policy, and civil society;
2. A roundtable on water, focusing on ecosystemic governance, participatory models, and European initiatives like Water4All;
3. A roundtable on soil, centred on Horizon Europe projects, the EU Soil Mission, the Soil Monitoring Law, and knowledge transfer mechanisms used by the European Commission.

Participants addressed

1. 1. The current challenges in implementing soil-related legislation at EU and national levels;
   2. The need for integrating qualitative data and social dimensions into soil health metrics;
   3. Examples of research-policy collaboration, including Horizon Europe projects, and advisory mechanisms;
   4. Proposals to make soil science more accessible and politically actionable.

Each roundtable featured a mix of researchers and policy officers, allowing a two-way exchange that balanced scientific insight with institutional experience. Moderators facilitated open dialogue and ensured inclusive participation across all sectors. Emphasis was placed on identifying systemic gaps and mapping out opportunities to institutionalise science-policy interfaces around soil.

Challenges

• Language and framing barriers between scientists and policymakers were repeatedly highlighted
• Scientists often lack clear entry points or guidance for engaging with EU-level decision making
• Civil society is still underrepresented in policy dialogues concerning natural resources despite their direct impact
• The social dimension of soil and water governance is often overlooked in favour of technical or environmental approaches
• Policy timelines and research cycles are often misaligned, reducing the usability of scientific findings in legislation
• Lack of dedicated knowledge brokers to mediate between academic expertise and public administration needs

Tasks and resources

Academics & researchers

• Presented scientific findings and recommendations on pest control, river ecosystem preservation, and participatory governance
• Shared experiences on barriers to engaging with public administration and the need for social sciences in policy evaluation
• Proposed formats for co-creating indicators that integrate scientific and local knowledge
• Highlighted risks of limiting soil governance to narrow metrics

Policy officers (European Commission, DG AGRI)

• Provided insights into how scientific input is accessed and used at the EU level
• Explained the internal mechanisms of science-policy collaboration (e.g., expert databases, advisory boards, Living Labs, scientific panels)
• Emphasised the role of research outputs in influencing legislative proposals
• Advocate for coordination with CAP advisory services and national implementation bodies

NGOs and think tanks

• Brought critical perspectives on the need for systemic change and democratisation of soil governance
• Stressed the urgency of including the civil sector and farmers in the policy design process

Knowledge brokers & coordinators

• Ensured cross-sectoral communication
• Acted as facilitators to help researchers better align with institutional needs and timing
• Gathered and documented insights for policy-oriented dissemination

Examples

• EU Soil Mission: A Horizon Europe initiative to pilot Living Labs and Lighthouses for soil health across member states
• Soil Monitoring Law: Legal framework aiming to create EU-wide soil data infrastructures
• Living Labs for soil: Promoted as multi-stakeholder platforms for applied experimentation and for a governance framework

Sources and further reading

• ENGAGEgreen Session 3 report – Soil Roundtable conclusions (UGR & BETA, June 2025)
• EU Soil Mission portal: https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/missions/soil-health-and-food_en
• IEEP briefings on soil strategy: https://ieep.eu
• Knowledge4Policy – Soil section: https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/soil

Case studies

Brussels, 12 June 2025 – ENGAGEgreen Dissemination and Stakeholder Conference
Session 3: Water and Soil: From Research to Public Policies for Environmental Protection
 Organisers: University of Granada & BETA Technological Center (University of Vic)

How was the format implemented?

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

What works

• Co-organising sessions with moderation and academic-institutional balance
• Including general discussions + topic-specific roundtables strengthens engagement
• Framing discussions within ongoing EU strategies (e.g. Soil Mission, CAP)
• Engaging NGOs and academic researchers alongside policymakers

What doesn’t

• The lack of structured access points for researchers to influence EU policymaking
• Limited formal structures for civil society or citizen science participation in EU soil governance
• Technical complexity can lead to disengagement if the language used is not clear

How are the activities evaluated?

• Feedback was gathered via live interaction and informal networking
• Indicators: diversity of speakers, institutional interest in follow-up actions, and ongoing connections made during the event. Engagement during the roundtable was high and balanced across institutions
• Clear expressions of interest for future collaboration
• Dissemination through press releases and policy briefings (University of Granada and BETA – University of Vic)

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

A Methodological Approach from the UGR County Councils Initiative

Summary: Key features in a nutshell

The evaluation instrument was designed with the following objectives:

• Measure the satisfaction of attendees across the four sectors of the quadruple helix
• Assess the perceived quality of networking and knowledge exchange
• Evaluate the understanding and perceived usefulness of the UGR County Councils initiative
• Capture differences in perception across academic and administrative profiles
• Identify actionable recommendations for improving inclusivity, policy relevance, and follow-up mechanisms in future living lab–based encounters

Description

The UGR County Councils (Consejos Comarcales UGR) initiative, part of the Erasmus+ ENGAGEgreen project, aims to promote structured science-policy dialogues across the ten counties of the province of Granada. In July 2025, the first territorial encounter brought together researchers, policymakers and civil society representatives in the historical Azucarera of Motril. To assess the impact of this event and strengthen future participatory formats, the University of Granada developed an evaluation survey specifically tailored to the quadruple helix model and the regional context.

This methodological approach was tested during two major events — the First Impronta Granada Meeting and the First Meeting of UGR County Councils — allowing comparison of perceptions and outcomes across different regional settings

How does the format work?

The survey was administered online using Google Forms and disseminated directly after the event. Participants were invited via email and QR codes distributed during the meeting. The form consisted of nine core questions divided into thematic blocks:

1. Identification block: sector affiliation (Academia, Public Administration, Business, Civil Society)
2. General satisfaction block: Likert scale (1 to 5) evaluating the overall meeting, networking opportunities, and event logistics. The event logistics was analyzed with four Likert-scale questions on the location, schedule, content, and facilitation
3. Participatory dynamics block: Items assessed inclusivity, perceived listening, and sense of contribution to the dialogue
4. Specific feedback blocks tailored to– Academic participants: changes in understanding of policy processes, interest in continued engagement– Public administration participants: prior experience with research, usefulness of data shared, intent to maintain contact.
5. Open feedback block: Suggestions for future events with optional contact details.

The evaluation process combined quantitative and qualitative approaches, including participant observation and informal feedback during networking sessions, to triangulate survey results and deepen the analysis of engagement dynamics.

Challenges

The questionnaire was developed by the technical coordination team of the Erasmus+ ENGAGEgreen project at the University of Granada. No external resources were required beyond institutional communication channels and Google Workspace tools. Internal collaboration with the data protection office ensured the compliance of the Regulation on the Protection of Personal Data of Individuals.

The main methodological challenge was balancing brevity with analytical depth, as short online forms sometimes limited the detail of qualitative responses.

Tasks and resources

The differentiated blocks for academics and policymakers proved effective in capturing specific expectations and experiences. The use of Likert scales allowed for a quantitative analysis of perceived impact, while the open section provided rich qualitative insights. Most notably:

• High levels of satisfaction and expressed interest in continued collaboration
• Strong appreciation for the opportunity to exchange knowledge in a regional context
• The methodology facilitated the identification of gaps between policy needs and academic communication strategies
• Tailored insight into institutional and individual motivations
• Better understanding of perceived usefulness of the event
• High levels of satisfaction with logistics, participation equity, and perceived listening
• A growing demand for more frequent formats of pairing and localized science-policy interaction.

Conclusion

Evaluating science-policy engagement formats is essential to ensure their effectiveness and replicability. The UGR evaluation model demonstrates how local events rooted in territorial identity can be assessed through simple but robust methodologies that reflect both institutional goals and participant experiences.

Scientists

• Designed and validated the mixed-methods evaluation protocol ensuring scientific robustness while maintaining accessibility for non-academic participants
• Analzsed quantitative data from 43 and 21 respondents across two events, identifying patterns of satisfaction and collaboration intentions
• Interpreted qualitative feedback to detect emerging themes such as commitment to collaboration, clarity of objectives, and need for stronger political engagement
• Produced evidence-based recommendations to enhance time allocation, venue accessibility, and follow-up strategies, thus reinforcing the Living Lab methodology’s policy impact
• Reflected on methodological transferability to other regional science-policy dialogues under ENGAGEgreen

Knowledge exchange managers and research managers

• Coordinated survey dissemination via digital and in-person channels (QR codes, email lists, feedback sessions)
• Conducted participant observation during group work to assess cross-sector dynamics and inclusivity.
• Collected and synthesized informal verbal feedback to complement survey findings
• Managed anonymization and GDPR compliance with the university’s Data Protection Office
• Compiled comprehensive reports integrating both quantitative results (e.g., satisfaction 4.53/5; networking 4.36/5) and qualitative insights, providing an internal learning document for ENGAGEgreen WP3

Policymakers

• Contributed perspectives on institutional needs and constraints through survey responses and interviews
• Used findings to adjust UGR County Councils’ agendas—prioritizing clearer communication of objectives, longer work sessions, and broader political representation
• Recognised the value of systematic evaluation as a tool for evidence-based policy improvement and enhanced collaboration with academia
• Expressed high willingness (avg. 4.50/5) to continue participating in future knowledge-exchange activities

Case studies

How is the format carried out?

Post-event, participants received a digital survey accessible via QR code and email. Data were exported to Excel for quantitative analysis and thematically coded for qualitative insights. Results were discussed internally by UGR’s ENGAGEgreen coordination team to identify lessons and integrate them into the Toolkit.

Available resources (what are the main tasks)

• Survey templates (Google Forms)
• Coding framework for qualitative data
• Feedback report template (summary + recommendations)
• GDPR consent and anonymisation guidelines

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

• Works: concise digital tools; mixed quantitative-qualitative design; immediate post-event collection
• Doesn’t: overly short group sessions; lack of rotation between discussion tables; vague follow-up procedures
• Lessons learnt: always combine survey data with observation notes; report results back to participants to maintain trust

How are the activities evaluated?

• Outputs: Completed feedback reports per event; consolidated WP3 evaluation chapter
• Outcomes: Evidence of increased collaboration intent (4.7/5); improved design of next County Councils
• Indicators: Satisfaction, networking, clarity, inclusivity
• Timing: Immediate post-event collection + synthesis within 2 weeks

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

Evidence from ENGAGEgreen Surveys

Summary: Key features in a nutshell

• Total respondents: 64 (43 + 21) from all quadruple-helix sectors
• Average overall satisfaction: consistently above 4 out of 5 across both events
• Highest-rated dimensions: participant satisfaction, networking, and willingness to continue collaboration
• Lowest-rated dimensions: time management, clarity of objectives, and political follow-up
• Findings reveal strong institutional trust in the University of Granada as a convener of regional dialogue

Description

This contribution presents the consolidated results from two evaluation surveys conducted after the First Impronta Granada Meeting (January 2025) and the First Meeting of UGR County Councils (July 2025). Both events were designed as science-policy dialogue platforms within the Erasmus+ ENGAGEgreen project, bringing together academia, public administration, business, and civil society across the province of Granada. The analysis combines quantitative satisfaction indicators with qualitative feedback to assess participant perceptions, areas for improvement, and overall impact of the Living Lab-based governance model.

How does the format work?

Post-event evaluation surveys were distributed in digital format via QR code and email within 24 hours of each meeting. The forms used a five-point Likert scale complemented by open-ended questions. The methodology ensured cross-sector participation and allowed comparison between the two events. Responses were triangulated with direct observation and informal feedback collected by the organizing team.

During the First Impronta Granada Meeting (January 2025):

• The highest-rated aspect was Overall satisfaction (4.53), indicating strong approval of the event’s relevance and execution related to the science-policy dialogue format through the Living Lab methodology
• Organization scored slightly lower (4.45), suggesting there is still room for optimization, particularly in time management and venue choice
• Networking opportunities (4.36) were well-received, but feedback suggests participants are seeking slightly more structured and operational exchanges in future editions

During the First Meeting of UGR County Councils (July 2025):

Highest-rated aspects:

• Intention of academics to maintain contact with policymakers (70)
• Desire of academics to participate in more future knowledge exchange activities (60)
• Recommendation of the event by academics (60)
• Public administration’s interest in further exchanges with researchers (50)
• Venue satisfaction (48)
• Generation of a comfortable and trusting atmosphere (28)

Lowest-rated aspects:

• Public administration’s receipt of concrete policy recommendations (29)
• Public administration’s perception of having received a general overview or specific data (29)
• Usefulness of the program (76)
• Duration and structure of the session (71)
• Equal opportunity for all participants to contribute (78)

Challenges

• Maintaining a balanced representation of all quadruple-helix sectors
• Managing limited time for presentations and group discussions
• Translating satisfaction data into operational policy outcomes
• Ensuring that recommendations are followed up institutionally
• Fostering clarity of objectives and purpose about the expected outcomes and the real influence of UGR County Councils

Tasks and resources

Scientists

• Conducted quantitative analysis of 64 valid responses (43 + 21) and calculated average ratings
• Identified statistically consistent satisfaction levels: overall 4.53, organization 4.45, networking 4.36 in January 2025; and 4.70 for academics’ willingness to engage, 4.50 for policymakers’ interest, 4.48 for venue quality in July 2025
• Interpreted qualitative feedback to highlight five recurring strengths: initiative appreciation, content relevance, collaboration commitment, willingness to contribute, and follow-up interest
• Detected recurrent improvement areas: time allocation, venue accessibility, fostering political engagement, clarifying the Living Lab objectives, and need for practical actions
• Drew comparative insights showing convergence between academic and policy expectations regarding continuous collaboration

Knowledge exchange managers and research managers

• Consolidated survey results and coded open-ended responses thematically
• Produced summary dashboards illustrating satisfaction and perception trends
• Organized internal debriefing sessions with the ENGAGEgreen WP3 coordination team to interpret findings and feed them into Toolkit development
• Drafted actionable recommendations for subsequent events, including improved facilitation methods and extended group-work sessions

Policymakers

• Provided reflective input on how evaluation findings could inform county-level planning
• Interested in ongoing collaboration but expressed lower ratings on receiving concrete, applicable outputs
• Prioritized measures to increase inclusivity and clarify expected outputs of future UGR County Councils.
• Recognized that systematic post-event evaluation enhances accountability and strengthens the evidence base for policy decisions.

First Impronta Granada Meeting (Jan 2025) — 43 responses; overall satisfaction 4.53 out of 5; networking 4.36; organization 4.45. Feedback praised cross-sector participation but requested improved time management and greater political involvement.

First UGR County Councils Meeting (Jul 2025) — 21 responses; balanced representation of academia (37.5 %); business (23.8 %); civil society (19.4 %); public administration (19.3 %); academics’ willingness to maintain contact 4.70; policymakers’ interest 4.50. Feedback emphasized the need for clearer objectives and longer, more inclusive group sessions.

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