Key features in a nutshell

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

What is the issue?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Researchers should avoid the following at policy events:

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

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

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

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

Tasks

Researchers

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

Knowledge mobilisers

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

Policymakers

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

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

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

• No One-Size-Fits-All: Assessment criteria must match the scope, duration, and goals of your specific engagement activity; a single breakfast talk requires a different evaluation than a multiyear expert commission
• Planning is key: Understanding the effects of a format is much more feasible once it is strategically agreed upon beforehand what effects the format is desired to have
• Understand effects beyond policy change: Direct legislative change is rare and multicausal; process indicators – such as relationship building, follow-up requests, and mutual learning – are often more realistic measures of success
• The right combination of resources and focus: There are almost endless possibilities when assessing one’s project but usually limited resources; to make the process and the results useful, it’s best to focus on specific aspects or questions that help projects grow or change and that match the resources of the project (e.g., to collect and assess data)

What is the issue?

How can researchers and research managers better understand the effects of their policy engagement activities? This is highly relevant for policy engagement activities to justify the time and financial resources invested, to demonstrate accountability to funders, and – most importantly – to reflect on and improve future interactions. It can also enable better alignment between the needs of policymakers and what advice science can provide.

However, as discussed in our article on Policy Engagement Goals, success looks vastly different depending on what you set out to achieve. External factors such as political timing, shifting government priorities, resource constraints, or sheer luck heavily influence outcomes as well.

A multiyear advisory board presenting a high-profile report operates in a different reality than a research team hosting an introductory lunch briefing on an emerging topic. Therefore, understanding different effects is not a standardised checklist but a flexible instrument, which starts with agreeing on goals and desired effects .

Possible goals of policy engagement can:

1. Policy change: shaping how challenges are framed, approached, and dealt with (e.g., legislation, directives),
2. Raising visibility, building trust, and expanding networks
3. Mutual learning: understanding policymaking, and gaining ideas for your own research
4. Open-ended informing of policymakers

Four levels of effects criteria

Different effects levels can be roughly identified, depending on the objectives and goals of the policy engagement activity as well as the resources available to examine them. It should be noted that exploring these effects can be a time-intensive activity in itself, which may require some expertise. For researchers and knowledge mobilisers, it can therefore be helpful to team up with experienced researchers or practitioners if possible.

Here we name four distinct levels of effects

Level 1: Reach and participant composition (input & output)

• What it measures: Who attended your activity and in what capacity?
• Key indicators: Number of participants, institutional diversity (e.g., representation from ministries, parliaments, NGOs, or think tanks), and the fit of the policymakers (i.e., the policymakers dealing with the policy issues)
• When should it be used: Ideal for initial, low-cost formats (e.g., public panel discussions, introductory webinars, or policy breakfasts)

Level 2: Interaction quality and relationship building (process)

• What it measures: Was the interaction perceived as valuable, and did it result in follow-up activities?
• Key indicators:
  • Qualitative/quantitative feedback: Surveys (e.g., via the Impact Unit Evaluation Platform) or short debriefing interviews asking both researchers and policymakers whether the activity was rewarding and informative
  • Follow-up activities: Unsolicited requests from policymakers after the event, organisation of joint events, informal follow-up conversation
• When should it be used: Essential for workshops, roundtables, and ongoing dialogue series aimed at long-term network building.

Level 3: Referencing and document citations (uptake)

• What it measures: Did your research findings inform policy discussions or official publications?
• Key indicators: Policymakers reference the findings or recommendations of individual researchers or research groups in media statements, press releases, or speeches; citations of academic publications or policy publications by researchers in policy documents like strategy papers, parliamentary inquiries, party platforms, or policy reports
• Tools: Policy citation databases such as Overton, Dimensions, or PlumX make it easy to track where academic work is cited in policy literature worldwide
• Caveat: Being cited in official policy documents indicates visibility and engagement, but it does not automatically mean that a policy was altered; note also that policy citation rates vary heavily across disciplines (e.g., public health and economics yield far higher citation counts than cultural studies)

Level 4: Attributable policy change (direct impact)

• What it measures: Did the scientific evidence directly shape a policy decision, legislation, or government programme?
• Key indicators: Explicit statements by decision makers in legal texts, parliamentary speeches, press releases, or official memoirs confirming that scientific advice influenced a specific decision
• Caveat: Attributable policy change is the highest bar and exceptionally rare; research is almost always one of many competing inputs in the policy process; expecting every engagement effort to yield direct policy change is unrealistic and leads to frustration

Tasks and resources

Researchers

Researchers are well positioned to reflect on how the interaction felt from their own perspective, if it resulted in sustainable connections and advanced their research. They are also a valuable source when it comes to understanding demands or challenges policymakers face by looking at questions that were asked, concerns that were raised, or topics that were (controversially) debated.

Research managers and knowledge mobilisers

Research managers typically design and distribute feedback questionnaires and track key data like number of participants, downloads, or follow-up contact between researchers and policymakers over time. They can also support researchers in documenting instances in which policy change is attributable to their work by, for example, monitoring government publications, coordinating with communications teams, or interviewing policymakers and their teams. Furthermore, (participant) observations or question-based protocols are helpful in documenting and assessing specific interactions or formats.

Policymakers

Policymakers contribute primarily through feedback and through their own public or written statements. Their input is most valuable when it is solicited directly and specifically through, for example, short structured questionnaires after an event or brief follow-up conversations, rather than assumed from silence or general goodwill.

Sources and further reading

Impact Unit (2026), Evaluation platform, https://evaluationsplattform.impactunit.de/, accessed on 20 August 2026.

Neicu, D., Cauchi, J., Otto, J., Lehto, S., & Dantas Faria, J. C. (2020), Monitoring the Impact of Science and Evidence on Policy, in Šucha, V. & Sienkiewicz, M. (eds.), Science for Policy Handbook, Elsevier, pp. 152–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-822596-7.00014-0

Newson, R., King, L., Rychetnik, L., Milat, A., & Bauman, A. (2018), Looking Both Ways: A Review of Methods for Assessing Research Impacts on Policy and the Policy Utilisation of Research. Health Research Policy and Systems, 16, Article 54. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0310-4

Overton (2026), Tracking Research Impact in Policy Documents. [Online Resource], accessed on 14 August 2026.

Reed, M. S. (2022), The Research Impact Handbook: Generating and Assessing Impact from Research. Fast Track Impact.

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

• Manage your expectations about your possible impact, timelines, and feedback
• Understand how policymaking works is a key prerequisite for avoiding frustration
• Communicate and build relationships proactively to avoid being misquoted and to create long-term connections
• Reflect on your engagement and give policymakers regular feedback

What is the issue?

If you talk to researchers about policy engagement a familiar theme comes up: frustration. Below are the frustrations I hear most often and what you can actually do about them.

A quick disclaimer: none of the quotes below are verbatim. They’re composites of things I’ve heard in one form or another over the years of talking to hundreds of researchers and running workshops on policy engagement.

• ‘I don’t see any impact’

You’ve heard it – maybe you’ve said it yourself: ‘I wrote a 100-page commissioned report for the ministry and clearly showed that X is a problem. And then … nothing happened.’ Or: ‘I spent over a year on an expert body. We came up with a dozen solid recommendations, but none of them got implemented.’ Or the softer, more deflated version: ‘The policymakers didn’t seem particularly interested in my findings. I think they’d already made up their minds. So, I’m not sure why they even asked.’

What you can do
First, remember that, in most cases, policymakers  under no obligation to follow scientific expertise. There’s an important difference between evidence-based and evidence-informed policymaking – policymakers operate under political, financial, and legal constraints that scientific evidence simply doesn’t touch. A recommendation might be perfectly sound and still be politically unpopular.

And ‘no visible impact’ doesn’t mean ‘no impact’. Think about smoking: the scientific evidence on its health effects was solid by the 1950s, but it took policymakers around the world decades to act on it. That doesn’t mean the early evidence was wasted – it just means impact is often slow, indirect, and hard to trace back to a single report or meeting.

Second, policymaking timelines can simply work against you. A government commissions an expert body, the body reports back two years later – except by then there’s a new government that isn’t especially interested in your findings. Or, a hearing is legally required before a bill passes, but by the time you’re in the room, minds are already made up. None of this is personal. It’s how the machine works. The more you understand policymaking processes, the less these moments will sting.

And sometimes ‘no impact’ is really about something else: invisibility. Your input quietly shapes a paragraph in the final policy paper, but your name never appears anywhere near it – no acknowledgement, no citation, nothing you can point to. That’s a real and valid frustration, and it’s worth raising directly with whoever commissioned your input, even if it rarely gets fixed retroactively.

• ‘They cherry-picked the one line that fit their agenda’

Sometimes the frustration isn’t that your research gets ignored, it’s the opposite: it gets used but selectively so. A single data point, a caveat-free soundbite, or a conclusion lifted out of its context ends up in a press release, speech, or website. It can feel like your work is being weaponised for an argument you never intended to make.

What you should do
Understand that policymakers aren’t reading your work the way peer reviewers do; they’re looking for a clear, usable takeaway, and nuance rarely survives that translation. You can reduce the risk (not eliminate it) by being proactive about framing: write a plain-language summary yourself, flag the caveats you really don’t want dropped, and offer a one-line ‘if you quote one thing, quote this’ takeaway. If a selective quote does happen and it materially distorts your findings, it’s fair to reach out – directly or via a follow-up statement – and set the record straight, calmly, and without assuming bad faith. More often than not, it’s less about ideology and more about compression: complex findings getting flattened into a single line because that’s what fits in a press release.

• ‘Policymakers just don’t get it – they lack even the basics’

Researchers are often genuinely surprised that policymakers don’t know what – from a researcher’s perspective – feels like basic vocabulary: exponential growth, the laws of thermodynamics or how ‘significant’ is not the same as ‘important’. Terms get lost in translation, too: ‘short-term’ might mean decades to a climate scientist or historian but days or weeks to a policymaker.

What you can do
Remember that policymakers come from diverse backgrounds; some might share your discipline, most won’t. And here’s an example of reframing: interdisciplinary research teams often need months to develop a shared vocabulary among scientists. Why would it be any different for policymakers?

Thus, invest in simplifying your language. Take a science communication course, ask your press office for feedback or run your text through tools like the De-Jargonizer or Readable.com. Talk about your research with people outside your field regularly. And ask policymakers directly for honest feedback on how you’re coming across.

One more thing: don’t assume policymakers know your field’s landmarks. They’ve probably heard of Nature and Science, a handful of elite universities, and the scientists who show up in the media. The Journal of xyz Quarterly – no matter how prestigious in your world – likely means nothing to them. They probably do not know the big names in your field. The same applies to the issue of time constraints in research institutions, how research projects work, or what terms like ‘PI’ stand for.

• ‘They expect the impossible from me’

There’s often a real gap between what policymakers ask for and what research can actually deliver. This shows up in a few different ways. First, some questions sound simple to policymakers but are almost impossible for researchers to answer with a Yes or No: “Do unhealthy diets cause cancer?” or “Do tax cuts reduce unemployment?” Real-world outcomes rarely have a single cause, and most research findings come with genuine uncertainty attached – something that doesn’t always translate into a soundbite-friendly answer.

Second, questions about the future are just as tricky: “When will the next flood happen?” or “Will China invade Taiwan in the next few years?” Research can identify risks, trends, and probabilities, but it can’t offer certainty about events that haven’t happened yet.

Third, there’s the jump from findings to recommendations: “You found that people who commute by bike are healthier than those who drive or take public transport. So what policy would you recommend?” Solid research doesn’t always translate neatly into a specific policy option; that step usually involves knowledge about policy priorities and trade-offs that go beyond what the data alone can tell you.

Fourth, policymakers sometimes ask for fast turnarounds without realising how research actually works: “Can you analyse the impact of last month’s heatwave on public transport, within the next two weeks?” Rigorous analysis takes time, and that mismatch in expectations can become a real source of friction.

What to do:
When you’re asked a question like this, explain clearly what your research can and can’t tell. Communicate uncertainty honestly rather than glossing over it, and, above all, stay patient. Policymakers usually aren’t testing you; more often, they simply don’t know how research works, and a calm, clear explanation goes a long way.

• ‘I honestly have no idea what they’re talking about’

Policymakers reference legislation, court rulings, key documents, or events you’ve never heard of. You might not be familiar with the actors or processes involved, and policymakers think about legal and economic angles that may not even be on your radar as a scientist. Even well-prepared researchers can get lost because a lot of what policymakers know is tacit knowledge, the kind you only pick up by being in the room.

And yes, policymakers have their own jargon too. Spend time in Brussels and you’ll be drowning in acronyms: DG, MFF, CAP, Acquis. I once sat in a meeting in a federal ministry in Berlin where someone said, “During the last LP, Schmidt wanted Directorate 4 to focus on …” It took me a while to figure out LP meant Legislaturperiode (legislative period), who Schmidt was, and what Directorate 4 actually did.

What you can do
Unless policy analysis is your day job, it’s completely normal to feel lost sometimes, even political scientists and legal scholars struggle with this. You don’t need to memorise organisational charts to have a good conversation with a policymaker. If you’re new to the field, get an overview by skimming key policy documents or organisational charts beforehand. And it’s absolutely fine to admit you’re new, policymakers generally respect that more than a bluff. Ask questions, always. If you’re invited to a policy event, ask your hosts for a briefing beforehand. Tacit knowledge only comes from talking to people , so make informal one-on-one conversations with policymakers a habit, not a rare occurrence.

• ‘Appointments get cancelled all the time – like my time doesn’t matter’

Colleagues in Brussels tell me there’s basically a 50/50 chance that an MEP cancels their panel appearance two hours before it starts. Another researcher told me how he learned that a minister cancelled a meeting while he was already on the train to the capital. This happened twice within two months. Meanwhile, the same researchers are sometimes asked to produce a thorough analysis of a breaking policy issue with just a few days’ notice.

Policymakers – especially MPs and senior decision makers – are dealing with schedules that get reshuffled by events completely outside their control. And to be fair, most of them have no idea that researchers are juggling teaching, administration, and research deadlines just as tightly.

What you can do
When organising an event, always ask policymakers to name a substitute in case they can’t make it. Do the same for one-on-one meetings. Rather than sinking four hours into preparing for a meeting with a minister that gets cancelled last-minute, ask in advance whether a policy officer could step in instead. Be upfront about your own scheduling constraints. Offer virtual meetings as a fallback. And it’s completely fair to explain that very short-notice requests for expertise are hard for you to fulfil too.

• ‘My contacts keep changing; I feel like I’m starting from scratch every time’

High turnover is simply a feature of democratic institutions. Members of Parliament lose their seats or switch committees. New governments bring in new ministry leadership. Career civil servants rotate units every few years. It’s exhausting to feel like you’re rebuilding relationships from zero again and again.

What you can do
Accept turnover as a structural feature, not a personal setback. Build relationships across the political spectrum, including with opposition parties, who may be in government next. Cultivate good working relationships with staffers, parliamentary group advisors, and policy officers, they tend to stick around longer than the politicians they support, and they carry institutional memory with them. Keep factsheets and policy brief, which you can quickly update if need be.

• “I wanted the decision maker; I got fobbed off with a low-level staffer’

First, this one usually reveals a common misconception. Staffers and policy officers are not ‘low-level’ but often the people with the greatest expertise on a specific issue – more than their superiors – and they’re the ones who synthesise scientific findings for the people above them. Second: if a decision maker turns down a meeting and sends someone else, it doesn’t mean they’re not interested. If they truly didn’t care, they wouldn’t send a representative at all.

What you can do

Appreciate the fact that a representative was sent on the decision maker’s behalf – engage with them properly and keep them in the loop. And if you’re inviting a decision maker to an event, be realistic about fit: does the role you’re offering (speaker, panelist, silent attendee) match their priorities? Is it a 20-minute slot or a two-day commitment? Where is it – the capital, their constituency, somewhere else entirely? And is it during a sitting week or recess? Getting these details right massively improves your odds.

• ‘Radio silence after the meeting – they never follow up’

Again: policymakers are busy. Silence after a meeting doesn’t mean disinterest.

What you can do
Follow up yourself! A few weeks or months later, reach out and say you’d like to continue the conversation, maybe you have new findings, or there’s a recent policy development worth discussing. Make it a habit to tell policymakers, right from your first meeting, that you’d like to stay in touch. And don’t take it personally if there is no follow-up meeting; their priorities shift constantly, and their calendar might simply not allow it.

• ‘They listen to the media, NGOs, and think tanks more than to scientists’

It can be baffling – even insulting – for scientists when policymakers reference a business association’s report, an NGO campaign, a consultancy’s analysis, or a tabloid headline instead of ‘proper’ scientific evidence.

What you can do
Scientific expertise is one source of knowledge among many for policymakers, not necessarily the most important one. Different actors play different roles in the ecosystem: think tanks and consultancies can turn policy analysis around far faster than academic institutions ever could. NGOs, trade unions, and business associations can mobilise and campaign in ways researchers simply can’t. Instead of feeling sidelined, follow the key NGOs, think tanks, and media outlets in your field: your findings can reach policymakers indirectly through them. Treat these actors as channels for your message, not competitors for attention.

• ‘They don’t show up to our policy events or use our knowledge exchange products!’

Scientists pour weeks or months into organising a policy event or into developing a knowledge exchange product like a policy publication series, an interactive website, an app, a simulation exercise, a fellowship, a placement scheme, an expert hotline, and policymakers simply don’t show up, or never end up using it.

What you can do

First, validate demand before building. Policymakers are flooded daily with position papers, event invitations, and other information. Before investing significant time and budget into developing apps, simulation games, fellowship schemes, or complex portals, ask your target group what they actually need and how much time they have. Involving policymakers early in the planning process provides crucial feedback on content, length, and format.

Second, prioritise targeted communication over mass outreach. Avoid generic mass emails or mailing: they are usually filtered out immediately. Map out relevant parliamentary committees, ministerial units, or party officials, and tailor your invitation or product directly to their current agenda. Explain clearly and concisely what specific insight they gain by attending the event or using the product. Following up with a brief phone call or personalised message takes time, but it is far more effective than spending months on an app that no policymakers use.

Third, join forces with established actors. If your institution is new to policy engagement or lacks direct channels to decision makers, partner with organisations that already have a proven track record (e.g., research networks, think tanks, NGOs, foundations). Joint events or joint formats like co-authored policy publications or dialogue formats tend to draw in policymakers far more effectively than going it alone.

• ‘I mentioned I needed funding, and nothing came of it’

Sometimes researchers engage with policymakers, partly hoping this will open the door to funding, and end up disappointed when that funding doesn’t materialise.

What you can do

Separate policy engagement from fundraising. Policy engagement is about mutual learning and evidence exchange, not direct grant acquisition. Most individual policymakers or ministries do not hand out research grants directly outside established funding programmes (e.g., national research agencies or EU frameworks). Approach policy conversations with the goal of providing value rather than seeking financial backing. Do not camouflage fundraising as policy engagement.

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

Sources and further reading:

De-Jargonizer, scienceandpublic.com

Readable, readable.com

Hemingway Editor, hemingwayapp.com

Lloyed, James (2016), So you want to change policy? Six steps for academics looking to achieve policy change, LSE Blogs, accessed on 05 August 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

• Before writing policy engagement into a proposal, check thoroughly whether it’s genuinely the right fit; half-hearted engagement helps no one
• Learn the funder’s exact terminology and expectations: ‘engagement’, ‘impact’, and ‘stakeholder engagement’ aren’t interchangeable across funders; understand what the funders expect and what you can realistically deliver
• Design policy engagement as something that benefits your research too and plan it for early in the project, not as an afterthought
• Budget realistically, and define meaningful, proper indicators to track whether your engagement is actually working

What is the issue?

Most policy engagement doesn’t fail because researchers don’t care; it fails because there’s never enough time or money left for it. Planning it into the research project cycle from day one, instead of attaching it later, is what makes the difference. Also, more and more funders are requiring applicants to demonstrate that their research projects will reach stakeholders outside academia or achieve real-life impact. The following tips can help researchers integrate policy engagement in funding proposals.

• Assess whether policy engagement aligns with your personal goals: If you have funding alternatives that don’t require policy engagement and you’re not intrinsically motivated to engage with policymakers, it may be worth applying elsewhere. But if policy engagement is a genuine requirement – and you have no realistic alternative – take it as seriously, as you would take financial reporting: not because it’s exciting but because it has to be done properly.

If you do have alternatives and are genuinely unsure whether policy engagement is for you, try this quick self-test. Rate the following two scenarios from 1 to 10, where 10 means “absolute disaster” and 1 means “not ideal, but I can live with that”:

Scenario 1: Not a single academic publication comes out of your research project.

Scenario 2: Every policymaker who reads your publications or attends your policy events tells you that it was a waste of their time.

If you rate Scenario 1 close to 10 and Scenario 2 close to 1, policy engagement probably isn’t the right fit for you right now. Half-hearted engagement tends to produce half-hearted knowledge exchange products, ones your project team won’t enjoy making and policymakers won’t use.

• Read the funder’s guidelines carefully: Different funders use different terminology: policy engagement, science for policy, stakeholder engagement, impact, valorisation, science communication, knowledge transfer, or something else entirely. Check the guidelines for how the funder defines the relevant terms. If you’re unsure, call the grant officer. Use the funder’s own terminology in your proposal: if the call says, ‘stakeholder engagement’, use that phrase, since reviewers may not be familiar with terms like ‘policy engagement’ or ‘science for policy’.

Also check whether policy engagement is a hard requirement or genuinely optional. In highly competitive funding lines, even ‘optional’ features can be de facto requirements. Confirm that policymakers are actually the right target group for your project; businesses, schools, trade unions, or other groups might sometimes be a better fit. Look at previously funded projects and talk to your research support office or colleagues who have received funding from the same donor about their experience. Check which costs the grant will actually cover and what the funder expects you to achieve: Are they satisfied with a few policy briefs on your website, or do they expect documented policy change attributable to your project?

• Demonstrate how policy engagement enriches your research: Researchers often treat knowledge exchange as monodirectional, without considering what they stand to gain: new perspectives, ideas for research questions or hypotheses, access to interview partners or institutions that can help disseminate surveys, or early input that sharpens the research itself. That’s also why it doesn’t work to plan all your policy publications or events for the end of the project. By then, there’s no time left to act on any feedback you receive. Plan your first policy engagement activities for the first half of the project instead. Include policymakers on advisory boards, and talk to them from the outset, ideally even before you submit your proposal. They may flag issues you hadn’t considered.

• Design specific, creative, and realistic engagement formats: Don’t rebrand standard academic outputs as policy engagement. ‘We will invite policymakers to our academic conferences’, ‘Policymakers will read our academic publications’, or ‘Some of our PhD students will go on to careers in government’ are not credible strategies. Your findings still need to be translated into policymakers’ needs. Be creative: there’s far more to choose from than policy briefs and panel discussions. But whenever you’re planning something more involved – an interactive website, a dashboard, an app, a simulation exercise, a serious game, a podcast, a workbook, an expert hotline, a placement scheme – present the idea to policymakers before you apply for funding. Some ideas sound great on paper but simply aren’t practicable for policymakers. Ask about their needs and match them against your resources and interests; otherwise, you risk spending months developing an app or simulation exercise that no policymaker ends up using. If a policymaker is enthusiastic about your planned format, consider asking them for a short letter of support to strengthen your proposal.

Beyond policymakers themselves, talk to colleagues experienced in policy engagement, or to knowledge mobilisers, about realistic outputs. Decide what outputs, outcomes, and impact you’re aiming for, and stress-test whether they’re realistic. Claims like ‘We will run a two-day workshop at our university attended by 40 MPs from across the country, who will then amend existing legislation as a direct result’ are very unlikely to happen – avoid them. The policy-engagement-toolkit.eu site or the REF Impact Case Study Database are good places for acquiring an overview of what different formats can plausibly achieve.

Finally, think about partnerships – not just with policymakers but with other research institutions, think tanks, NGOs, or foundations – to amplify your engagement and share resources. Rather than organising your own policy events in the capital or launching your own policy brief series from scratch, consider joining forces with organisations that already exist.

• Request a realistic budget: High-quality policy engagement requires adequate financial resources. Consult your institution’s communications, transfer, or research support staff when drafting your budget. Where possible, budget for professional services: moderators, workshop facilitators, graphic designers, website or app developers, scientific writers, event managers, knowledge brokers, or policy engagement trainers. These services can be expensive, but expecting early-career researchers to handle specialised tasks without prior training often leads to delays and suboptimal results. Be prepared to justify the costs: renting an event space in walking distance of the parliament buildings in the capital is more expensive than hosting a policy conference at a university 200 kilometres away, but it may be the only way to reliably reach busy policymakers.

• Define clear and realistic monitoring, evaluation and learning metrics: Reviewers want to see how success will be tracked. Therefore, focus on meaningful qualitative and quantitative indicators like feedback by policymakers or follow-up activities. Show how feedback from policymakers will be continuously evaluated and used to refine project outputs.

Tasks and resources

Researchers

Assess team capacity, the motivation for policy engagement, and knowledge about policymaking early in the proposal phase; integrate policymakers into advisory boards; draft and co-design tailored engagement formats.

Research managers and knowledge mobilisers

Inform applicants about the requirements of various funders. Provide how-to guides (like this one) to applicants. Inform them about policy engagement formats. Track policy engagement across funding applications at your institution. Where possible, offer assistance in connecting applicants with policymakers.

Policymakers

Provide early feedback on research priorities prior to proposal submission; provide a letter of support if needed; participate in project advisory boards or dialogue sessions; offer insights on current policy workflows and information needs; test and utilise tailored policy outputs.

Sources and further reading

ENGAGEgreen Policy Engagement Toolkit (2026), Accessed on 10 August 2026.

REF 2021. Research Excellence Framework (2022), Impact Case Study Database, Accessed on August 10, 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

• Organisation charts, key documents, and specialised media can give you a fast, low-cost overview of any policy field
• Regularly reading key documents and policy briefs has a useful side effect: it gets you used to policy language over time
• Strategy papers, action plans, and calls for evidence tell you what policymakers actually need; check these actively rather than waiting to be approached
• Personal conversations and policy events give you access to implicit knowledge that no published document can offer; it’s perfectly normal to approach policymakers directly, just as lobbyists do all the time.
• None of this requires a huge investment of time: most of it fits into hours or days, not weeks

What is the issue?

Researchers who are new to policy engagement often ask a fundamental question: Where do I start? This question is far from trivial. In practice, that question breaks down into several more specific ones:

• How can I quickly understand policy priorities and policymaking processes?
• How do I find out if my expertise is relevant to policymakers?
• How do I learn about possible engagement opportunities?
• How do I identify the right target groups for my expertise in policymaking institutions?
• How can I make sense of policy jargon?
• How can I do all of this in a time-efficient way?

This guide provides a structured overview of the key information sources that help answer these questions.

1. Organisational charts (Organigrams)

Think about the core topics of your research (e.g., cybersecurity, environment, mobility, or health). Search online for local authorities, regional or national ministries, European Commission Directorates-General (DGs), and international organisations dealing with these issues, and locate the organisational charts on their websites.

Organisational charts are invaluable for two main reasons:

First, quick Overview & Priority Assessment: You get a rapid overview of the responsibilities of policymaking institutions. They also help you gauge how prioritised a topic is: For instance, are multiple specialised units dedicated to different aspects of the topic, or is it handled by a single unit alongside many other issues?

Second, target Identification: You can pinpoint the exact units to invite to events, request meetings with, or inform about your research findings.

Tip: Compare organisational charts across regional or national ministries, European Commission DGs, and international organisations like the WHO or OECD. If you are unsure which department leads a crosscutting issue (e.g., environmental taxation or cybersecurity), check ministries in related domains as well.

Don’t be intimidated! Browsing organisational charts for the first time can feel overwhelming, especially when navigating large PDF files. Feeling a bit confused is completely normal. Many policy professionals admit it takes them time to locate the right contacts within policymaking institutions!

Parliaments: Take a look at overviews of parliamentary committees. In many political systems, parliamentary committees mirror the portfolios of executive ministries.

2. Key documents: Key documents offer strategic insights into the priorities and work plans of governments, political parties, and international bodies. These include:

• Party platforms / party manifestos
• Government programmes (e.g., Programme for Government 2025: Securing Ireland’s Future; A Strong and Committed Finland)
• Strategies, action plans, and roadmaps (e.g., EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030; WHO Global Strategy on Digital Health 2020–2027; Digital Switzerland Strategy)
• Legislative acts and draft legislation
• Evaluations and impact assessments
• Background briefings on policy issues, usually published on institutional websites
• Calls for evidence, public consultations, and calls for commissioned research (e.g., EU portal ‘Have Your Say’; Areas of Research Interests (ARIs) in the United Kingdom)
• Analyses by policymaking institutions and expert bodies (e.g. OECD reports; IPCC reports)

A note of caution: Not every measure outlined in a policy document is implemented exactly as drafted. Political priorities can shift rapidly, particularly during crises (e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic or Russia’s attack on Ukraine). Nevertheless, key documents are essential for research institutions planning medium-term policy engagement activities.

3. Policy analyses & position papers by think tanks, NGOs, and associations

Scientific research is not the only source of external information for policymakers. Think tanks, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), industry associations, and foundations regularly publish policy briefs and position papers.

Reading these publications helps you analyse policy developments and understand stakeholder demands. It is well worth mapping the key stakeholders in your field. If your research covers environmental policy, regularly review publications from business associations, environmental NGOs, and specialised think tanks. You can easily map these organisations using search engines or AI tools.

4. Newsletters, press releases, and social media

Subscribe to official newsletters and press releases and follow relevant policymakers and key stakeholders on social media. These channels provide timely updates on current developments and upcoming policy events.

Whom to follow?

• Political parties
• Members of Parliament (MPs): Focus on influential MPs, such as party spokespersons for your field or committee chairs; additionally, always follow the MPs representing the electoral constituency where your research institution is based
• Public institutions: Local authorities, regional and national ministries, executive agencies, and arms-length bodies; depending on your focus, subscribe to updates from European Commission Directorates-General and international bodies
• Key stakeholders: High-profile think tanks, industry associations, NGOs, and foundations active in your field (e.g., biodiversity, cybersecurity)

5. Media & specialised news services

Monitor major news outlets and specialised media formats. Platforms like Politico Pro or Euractiv offer deep-dive background reporting on EU policy developments. Similar specialised services exist at the national level (e.g., Table.Media or Tagesspiegel Background in Germany). Check with your university library to see which subscriptions, news services, or media databases (e.g., Nexis Uni) you can access free of charge under institutional licences.

6. Policy events and personal conversations

Especially capital cities host numerous events bringing together policymakers, researchers, and experts from think tanks and civil society.

Participating in policy events is crucial for two reasons:

1. Direct Networking: You can connect directly with policymakers and peers. Prepare a concise elevator pitch in advance. Make it a habit to exchange contact details after a meaningful conversation – and follow up! Connecting at events and following up a few weeks later is often far more time- and cost-effective than organising your own standalone events without existing policy networks.
2. Accessing Implicit Knowledge: Public documents, newsletters, and press releases only tell part of the story. Policymakers hold substantial implicit and contextual knowledge that can only be accessed through direct dialogue.

Don’t be shy: Its standard practice to identify relevant officials via organisational charts, contact them directly, and request a brief personal or virtual introductory meeting. Lobbyists and advocacy groups do this all the time – researchers should feel equally confident in reaching out with their expertise.

These strategies may seem time-consuming at first, but they yield significant long-term results. Regularly reading policy documents, think tank briefs, and specialised newsletters has another major benefit: it helps researchers become fluent in policy jargon.

Tasks and resources

Researchers

• Set aside regular time – even just 30 minutes a week – to read relevant newsletters and scan key documents and policy publications
• Identify a handful of institutions, committees, or individual policymakers to follow closely, rather than trying to track everything
• Attend policy events, prepare a short elevator pitch, and follow up with new contacts afterwards

Research managers and knowledge mobilisers

• Curate and share relevant newsletters, key documents, and event information with researchers at their institutions
• Explain the difference between various types of policy documents
• Help researchers identify the right policymaking institutions and contacts for their field
• Provide access to specialised media and information services through, for example, library subscriptions

Policymakers

• Keep organisation charts, key documents, and contact information publicly accessible and up to date
• Maintain an active newsletter or social media presence
• Stay open to direct meeting requests from researchers

Sources and further reading

Department of the Taoiseach (2025), Programme for Government 2025. Securing Ireland’s Future, https://assets.gov.ie/static/documents/programme-for-government-securing-irelands-future.pdf  accessed on 12 August 2026.

European Commission (2020), Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/biodiversity-strategy-2030_en, accessed on 12 August 2026.

French, M.; Hawkins, M. (2024), Areas of Research Interest: A Practical Guide, https://upen.ac.uk/resources/areas-of-research-interest-a-practical-guide/, accessed on 12 August 2026.

Federal Council (2026), Digital Switzerland Strategy 2026, https://www.bk.admin.ch/en/digital-switzerland , accessed on 12 August 2026.

Finnish Government (2023), A Strong and Committed Finland. Programme of Prime Minister Petteri Orpo’s Government, https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/server/api/core/bitstreams/ad4dc8fd-afad-4b21-b7c2-c197c8e4b378/content, accessed on 12 August 2026.

WHO (2025), Global Strategy on Digital Health 2020-2027, https://iris.who.int/server/api/core/bitstreams/a64d584f-015b-471f-9d86-9ea263cfb516/content, accessed on 12 August 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

Summary: Key features in a nutshell

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

Description

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

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

How does the format work?

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

Challenges

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

Tasks and resources

Scientists

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

Knowledge exchange managers and research managers

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

Policymakers

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

ENGAGEgreen Project and UGR County Councils

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

Sources and further reading

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

Key features in a nutshell

• To avoid wasting time and funding on unread policy publications or poorly attended events, researchers and knowledge mobilizers must plan dissemination strategies from the very beginning
• Effective dissemination combines several reinforcing strategies: stakeholder mapping and personalized outreach, media and social media, personal networks, and the dissemination channels of partner organizations

What is the issue?

Researchers who are invited by policymakers to conduct commissioned research, participate in expert bodies, attend parliamentary hearings, or speak at policy events enjoy direct access to decision makers — a significant advantage. Researchers new to policy engagement, however, face a different challenge: gaining visibility among policymakers in the first place.

The risk is real. A well-researched policy publication that no policymakers read or a carefully organized policy event that attracts only other researchers, represents a significant loss of time and resources. The solution is not to only focus on content; it is to plan dissemination from the very beginning of a project, with the same care and deliberateness as the research itself. The following strategies are possible:

Strategy 1: Stakeholder mapping and personalized outreach

Researchers or knowledge mobilizers can identify their target audience by browsing the organizational charts and websites of relevant policymaking institutions: local and regional governments, national ministries and agencies, parliaments, political parties, EU institutions, and international organizations. From this, they can build a targeted mailing list.

The effort required varies enormously depending on the scope of the topic. A policy publication on cycling behavior in a single neighborhood may be relevant to only a handful of policymakers – mapping them might take a few hours. A publication on cycling behavior across 214 cities in 25 European countries may be relevant to policymakers at the local, national, and EU level. Mapping them and researching their contact details could take weeks or months.

Wherever possible, researchers should avoid sending a single generic message to all recipients. Personalized outreach, even when based on a common template, is far more effective. The same policy report on cycling, for example, might be relevant to very different audiences for very different reasons:

• A ministry of transportation responsible for traffic regulation, road planning, and signage
• A ministry of education looking to address cycling in school curricula
• A mayor’s office seeking to position the city as a cycling-friendly destination for tourists
• Members of parliament advocating for active lifestyles and long-term public health

Each of these recipients deserves a message that speaks directly to their remit and interests. Researchers should use a personal hook in every message: one sentence that explains why this particular publication or event is relevant to this particular recipient.

Finally, every outreach message should include an explicit offer of availability: researchers should state that they are happy to arrange a virtual meeting or phone call to discuss the findings in more detail.

Strategy 2: Media, social media, and dissemination platforms

Press releases remain a relevant tool for increasing the visibility of publications and events, particularly when issued through an institution’s communications office. Announcing policy publications or events via social media can also be effective – researchers and knowledge mobilizers can connect with policymakers directly and invite them to follow their personal or institutional accounts. Specialized policy platforms such as EU Agenda or Euractiv reach many policymakers and policy professionals and can be used to announce events or publications.

Strategy 3: Personal networks

Colleagues, collaborators, and alumni contacts who are well connected with policymakers are a valuable dissemination resource. Researchers and knowledge mobilizers can ask trusted contacts to introduce them to relevant policymakers, forward publications or event invitations to their networks, or share content on social media. A personal recommendation from a trusted intermediary is often more effective than a cold outreach message.

Strategy 4: Dissemination channels of partner organizations

Research institutions, think tanks, NGOs, foundations, and associations that already enjoy high visibility among policymakers can serve as important dissemination partners. Researchers and knowledge mobilizers should explore whether these organizations publish guest contributions in their newsletters or publication series, a well-placed guest article can reach a far larger and more relevant audience than putting a policy brief on the institutional website.

Inviting experts from think tanks, NGOs, foundations, or other organizations to participate in policy events also serves a dual purpose: it adds diversity and credibility to the event, and it expands its reach, as invited guests typically share event information through their own social media channels and communications networks.

Combining strategies

The strategies above are not mutually exclusive, they reinforce one another. Researchers and knowledge mobilizers should assess the resources they can realistically invest in dissemination and select the combination of strategies that best fits their topic, target audience, and institutional context.

Tasks and resources

Researchers

Researchers sometimes underestimate the importance of dissemination. The most important mindset shift is this: producing scientific evidence is not enough. Researchers should plan at least some dissemination activities themselves, particularly personalized outreach to policymakers they know or have identified through stakeholder mapping.

Knowledge mobilizers

Knowledge mobilizers play a central role in making dissemination efficient and sustainable. Once a stakeholder map has been built and a mailing list created, it can be maintained and reused for future activities. Knowledge mobilizers should develop reusable templates for email messages, social media posts, and press releases that can be adapted to each new publication or event. They should also help researchers identify partner organizations like think tanks, NGOs, foundations, and associations that can extend the reach of their work.

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 at science-policy@pvw.uni-frankfurt.de

Resources and further reading

Baron, Nancy (2010), Escape from the Ivory Tower: A Guide to Making Your Science Matter. Island Press.

Swann, Michelle (2012), Writing Professional Emails: The Step-by-Step Guide.

Willis, Christina C. (2020), Sustainable Networking for Researchers and Engineers, https://doi.org/10.1117/3.2535500.

Description

Geoparticipation in the context of citizen science represents a specific group of participatory methods that enable the public to actively contribute to the collection of spatially explicit data through digital map‑based interfaces. In both Czech and international practice, this approach is most commonly implemented through so‑called emotional (participatory) mapping, in which respondents record their experiences, opinions, or subjective perceptions of specific places directly into a map using points, lines, or polygons. These spatial inputs are typically supplemented with textual descriptions, photographs, comments, or predefined thematic categories.

The collected data are subsequently processed using standard Geographic Information Systems (GIS) workflows, including data cleaning, aggregation, spatial analysis, and visualization. A wide range of visualization techniques can be applied to emotional mapping data; however, digital cartographic methods such as heat maps, aggregated visualizations using hexagonal grids of varying resolutions, cartograms, cartodiagrams, or clustering techniques are most commonly used to facilitate interpretation of results by end users.

Unlike conventional questionnaire surveys, geoparticipation captures not only respondents’ opinions but also their precise spatial location associated with each response. This makes the method particularly suitable for topics where spatial context is essential, such as transportation, safety, quality of public spaces, environmental issues, or spatial and urban development. In practice, geoparticipation is often implemented as an extension of a traditional questionnaire enriched with spatial questions.

The method is not intended to produce statistically representative samples but rather to serve as a targeted participatory survey whose main value lies in identifying specific locations and issues that are typically absent from administrative datasets or difficult to detect through conventional means. The collected responses provide valuable supporting evidence for municipal and regional authorities when making strategic decisions informed by public opinion.

The key features in a nutshell

The fundamental characteristic of geoparticipation is the active involvement of citizens in the collection of spatial data through a simple map‑based application. The method supports mapping of points, lines, and polygons, with each spatial entry accompanied by a textual comment and, where applicable, a predefined thematic category specified by the research designer.

Geoparticipation can be used as a standalone research tool or as an extension of a traditional questionnaire by adding a spatial dimension. It is applicable across diverse respondent groups and, due to its intuitive design, is suitable for both technically skilled users and lay participants without advanced IT knowledge. Data collection can take place entirely online via a publicly accessible map application or directly in the field using tablets or mobile phones under the guidance of trained facilitators.

Typical topics include perceived safety and fear, positively and negatively perceived places, proposals for urban development (parks, playgrounds, greenery, benches), problematic traffic situations, noise, pollution, or parking issues. The method enables the collection of data that are otherwise largely unavailable and creates an important bridge between expert planning practices and the everyday experiences of residents.

How does the format work?

Implementing a geoparticipatory mapping project requires careful preparation of the methodology, technical solution, and survey questions. Equally important is the selection of the mapping location and the target group of respondents. A key methodological decision concerns the choice of geometry type—whether respondents will map only points or also lines and polygons. While point mapping is user‑friendly and efficient, lines and polygons allow for more precise representation of phenomena but place higher demands on user orientation and subsequent data processing.

The selection of an appropriate base map is equally critical. In some cases, orthophotos are preferable, while in others topographic maps or detailed urban plans are more suitable. An inadequately chosen base map can significantly reduce the quality of the mapped data. Each mapped feature should include a mandatory description and ideally a thematic category to facilitate later analysis, as spatial clicks without contextual information have limited interpretative value.

It is recommended to use widely familiar map backgrounds to ensure respondents feel comfortable using an interface similar to everyday map applications.

Geoparticipation is best combined with a short non‑spatial questionnaire integrated into the same tool. This usually includes questions on overall satisfaction with the topic and basic sociodemographic information (e.g., age, gender). In some cases, information about the respondent’s place of residence is also collected, typically in a partially anonymized form (such as city district or street), to distinguish between local residents and visitors to the area.

From a technical perspective, only a limited number of tools currently support geoparticipation. Basic scenarios can be implemented using tools such as Survey123; however, more complex logic usually requires the development of a custom solution. While specialized PPGIS platforms are used internationally, none offer a universally applicable solution. In exceptional cases, digital data collection may be supplemented by paper‑based methods (e.g., for seniors or young children), although subsequent data integration is both methodologically and technically demanding.

In the Czech Republic, a specialized company (https://www.pocitovemapy.cz/) develops and implements customized web environments tailored to specific formats, locations, and thematic requirements.

Role of Participants

The academic sector typically ensures methodological design, selection of technical solutions, configuration of the mapping application, and subsequent data processing and evaluation using GIS. Its role also includes interpretation of results and preparation of outputs understandable to both public authorities and the general public.

Municipalities or regions define the thematic focus, specify practical decision‑making questions, and ensure communication with citizens, particularly through promotion of data collection via websites and social media. Citizens contribute local knowledge and experiences that are not available in official datasets. In some cases, targeting specific population groups—such as primary school children when mapping safe routes to school—can be particularly beneficial.

In general, the greater the number and diversity of responses collected within a given area, the more robust and valid the results can be considered.

Benefits for participations

The principal benefit of geoparticipation lies in its ability to generate unique spatial data that are otherwise largely unavailable. The collected data represent respondents’ opinions linked to precise spatial locations. A higher concentration of responses in a given location increases the credibility of the findings.

The method enables precise localization of problems and their qualitative description directly from the perspective of residents. For public authorities, geoparticipation represents a fast and flexible tool for identifying priorities and local issues. For academia, it offers significant opportunities for applied research and collaboration with public administration. Students benefit from working with real‑world data and participating in projects with direct practical impact.

Challenges (and ways to address them)

A fundamental limitation of geoparticipation is the non‑representative nature of the respondent sample and the risk of collecting a low number of responses. Results must therefore be interpreted as exploratory rather than statistically representative. This limitation can be partially mitigated through targeted promotion and involvement of local institutions.

Additional challenges include the technical and methodological complexity of project preparation, particularly when developing custom solutions, as well as issues related to data privacy and anonymization when combining spatial and personal information.

Tasks and Resources

Geoparticipatory projects are both time‑ and expertise‑intensive. Preparation typically takes approximately one month, data collection another month, and evaluation at least one month. The overall project duration therefore usually spans around three months.

In terms of funding, geoparticipation is most commonly implemented through contractual research or close collaboration with municipalities. Universities are generally unable to provide such services free of charge, as they require experienced teams and adequate technical infrastructure.

Example

In recent years, Palacký University Olomouc has implemented a number of geoparticipatory projects, including mapping urban temperature phenomena in the city of Olomouc, monitoring mosquito occurrence in the Litovelské Pomoraví Protected Landscape Area, emotional maps of perceived fear, and the Safe Route to School project focusing on problematic traffic situations from the perspective of primary school children. Additional public outputs are available through specialized web portals dedicated to emotional mapping in the city of Olomouc.

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

How Universities Can Collaborate with Think Tanks, NGOs, and Foundations

Summary: Key features in a nutshell

• Researchers at universities can benefit from collaboration with think tanks, NGOs, or foundations by jointly organizing policy events, co-publishing policy-relevant research findings, pursuing staff exchange placements, or pooling resources in terms of expertise, funding, and support capacity.
• While scientists at universities contribute evidence through original research or a thorough synthesis of academic literature, policy experts at think tanks, NGOs, and foundations can translate academic findings into policy-relevant formats and identify appropriate target audiences and windows of opportunity.
• Think tanks, NGOs, and foundations are diverse entities. Think tanks range from advocacy-oriented institutes to academic research centers and contract research organizations. NGOs encompass advocacy organizations, service delivery bodies, professional associations, and business associations. Foundations provide grants to NGOs or research institutions and may also publish policy analyses or organize policy events.
• Collaboration works best when joint goals are clearly defined, reputational risks are assessed in advance, and practical arrangements—such as cost-sharing and publication rights—are agreed upon before collaboration begins.
• Collaboration with think tanks, NGOs, and foundations is an effective way to achieve impact as required by funding organizations.

Why collaborate? Challenges scientists face when engaging with policymakers

Research at universities is structured around projects that produce original research and thorough syntheses of academic literature. Scientists publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals but often face three recurring challenges when seeking to engage with policymakers:

Challenge 1: Communicating research findings effectively. Researchers tend to use scientific jargon and are often unfamiliar with the language and conventions of policy. Formats such as policy briefs or policy events differ substantially from academic publications or academic conferences.

Challenge 2: Identifying windows of opportunity. Knowing when to communicate findings requires regularly following policy debates, a time-consuming task. Scientists typically lack access to the tacit knowledge embedded in policymaking institutions.

Challenge 3: Reaching the right policymakers. Mapping relevant target groups by browsing parliamentary committees and organizational charts of ministries, European Commission directorates-general, or political parties is a demanding and time-intensive task.

By collaborating with think tanks, NGOs, and foundations, scientists can save time and resources while amplifying their policy impact. These organizations interact with policymakers regularly and enjoy a degree of visibility that most scientists or academic institutions struggle to achieve independently. Policy experts at think tanks, NGOs, and foundations closely monitor policy debates, know whom to approach, and are familiar with the language and framings that resonate in policy contexts. Rather than investing time and resources in publications or events that go unnoticed by policymakers, scientists can conduct research, publish findings, and organize policy events in collaboration with these organizations.

Challenge 4: Scarcity of resources. Activities such as organizing policy events (especially in capitals), engagement, dissemination, networking, or fundraising can be very expensive and time-consuming. Sharing costs, staff time, or infrastructure for specific activities, such as events or publications, can drastically reduce the total cost per partner.

What forms can collaboration take?

Collaboration between universities and think tanks, NGOs, and foundations can take several forms, ranging from low-commitment to high-commitment arrangements:

• Joint publications: Coauthoring policy briefs, reports, blog posts, or factsheets; the university contributes evidence; the partner organization contributes policy framing and dissemination reach
• Joint events: Co-organizing panel discussions, background briefings, parliamentary breakfasts, and workshops; the university contributes scientific credibility; the partner organization contributes its network and access to policymakers
• Staff exchanges and secondments: Researchers spend time at a think tank, NGO, or foundation to gain firsthand experience of the policy process; this is particularly valuable for early-career researchers
• Research collaboration: Jointly designing and conducting research projects, with the partner organization contributing policy-relevant research questions and access to policymaking stakeholders
• Shared knowledge and data platforms: Jointly maintained databases, evidence repositories, and policy tracking tools that reduce repeated data collection and allow all partners to draw from a common evidence base
• Long-term strategic alliances or frameworks: Instead of project-by-project collaboration, partners establish umbrella agreements that allow repeated cooperation (events, outputs, funding bids) without renegotiating administrative details each time. For instance, these agreements could foresee:
  • Shared project management offices (PMOs): Partners establish a joint coordination unit responsible for timeline management, deliverables tracking, reporting, and risk monitoring across multiple joint activities; this reduces duplication of project coordination roles in each organization
  • Shared administrative services (“back-office pooling”): Organizations pool functions such as finance, procurement, contracting, HR administration, or compliance management for joint projects; this reduces overhead costs and avoids parallel administrative workflows.
  • Joint communications and dissemination units: A shared comms function handles policy briefs, press outreach, newsletters, and social media for joint work, ensuring consistent messaging while reducing duplicated communication staff effort
  • Coordinated event logistics teams: Rather than each organization separately managing venues, catering, invitations, and registrations, a shared operational team (or rotating lead) manages all event logistics across partners.

Collaborations can be temporary (e.g. a single joint event) or long-term (e.g., series of events or publications, joint projects, or a strategic alliance).

How to find suitable partners: A starting point

Researchers and research managers can identify potential partners via the following routes:

• Websites like EU Agenda, Euractiv, and International Geneva list policy events and policy publications by various actors; similar websites exist at the national level but only in some European countries (e.g., Smart Thinking in the UK or Political in Germany); attending policy events in your field is one of the most effective ways to identify and informally assess potential partners
• Directories like the Open Think Tank Directory, NGO base, Philanthropy Europe Association, or the EU Transparency Register list numerous organizations that might offer collaboration opportunities; similar websites might also exist on the national level

Assessing a potential partner: Key questions

Before approaching a potential partner, researchers and research managers should work through the following questions:

On quality and reputation

• Participants and partners: What types of events does it organize? Have policymakers attended its events? Can it count on a valuable network of partners?
• Independence and governance: Does the organization have a clear political orientation or affiliation? Is it funded by industry, political parties, or business associations?
• Quality: does the organization have valuable Quality Assessment tools and procedures in place? What kinds of publications does the organization produce (policy briefs, reports, blog posts, factsheets)? Are the content and quality convincing?

On fit and feasibility

• Does the organization work on policy issues in your area of expertise?
• Does it publish joint publications or welcome guest contributions? Does it co-organize events with external partners?
• Is the organization active and visible? Is it posting regularly on social media, with content that is shared and engaged with?
• Do both organizations define “policy impact” in the same way (e.g., legislative change, public debate, implementation)?
• Is there alignment on policy positions, or at least on the degree of advocacy vs neutrality expected?
• Does the organization typically work at the same governance level (EU, national, local), or would coordination be cross-scale and complex?
• Are timelines compatible (academic research cycles vs. policy cycles vs. funding cycles)?
• Is there flexibility to adapt outputs mid-project if policy developments change direction?
• Does the organization have experience working with academic partners, or will there be a steep learning curve?

On practical arrangements:

• Does the collaboration involve cost-sharing? What costs need to be covered, and what is your budget?
• Who decides on the structure, layout, and publication dates of joint outputs? Who controls the guest list for events?
• Does a cooperation agreement need to be signed? Is there an official policy on logo use and institutional attribution?
• What happens in the case of disagreement over framing, conclusions, or recommendations?
• Who owns jointly produced outputs, and under what license can they be reused?
• How are indirect costs (overheads, admin time, institutional costs) covered?
• Are budget reallocations possible if project needs change?
• Are there conflict-of-interest disclosures required by any partner or funder?
• What safeguards exist to ensure independence of analysis and findings?
• Who has the final say on public messaging and media communication?
• Under what conditions can a partner withdraw from the collaboration?

Warning signs: When to be cautious

Not all potential partners are equally suitable. Researchers should exercise caution when

• An organization’s funding sources are opaque or dominated by industry interests whose positions conflict with independent scientific evidence
• An organization is closely affiliated with a political party or ideological movement in ways that could compromise the perceived neutrality of the research
• An organization expects researchers to endorse predetermined policy positions rather than contributing independent evidence
• An organization has a weak or inconsistent publication or visibility record, suggesting limited reach or impact
• The collaboration agreement gives the partner organization sole control over the framing, editing, or publication of joint outputs

Process overview: From first idea to active collaboration

The following sequence describes a typical pathway from initial interest to active collaboration. It is intended as a flexible guide, not a rigid protocol.

1. Step 1: Define your goal. Clarify what you want to achieve: impact in terms of policy change, increased visibility among policymakers, joint research, or access to a partner’s network and events.
2. Step 2: Map the landscape. Identify think tanks, NGOs, or foundations active in your policy area using the routes described above.
3. Step 3: Assess potential partners. Work through the guiding questions above. Prioritize organizations whose publication quality, political independence, and working style align with your own.
4. Step 4: Make initial contact. Reach out informally by attending an event, responding to a publication, or requesting a brief introductory meeting. Collaboration is more likely to succeed if it grows out of a genuine shared interest rather than a cold institutional approach.
5. Step 5: Agree on the collaboration format. Decide together on the type of collaboration (joint publication, event, research project), the division of tasks, cost-sharing arrangements, and any formal agreements required.
6. Step 6: Implement and evaluate. Carry out the collaboration, document lessons learned, and assess whether the collaboration achieved its intended goals. Successful collaborations often become the foundation for longer-term partnerships.

Roles and responsibilities in collaboration

The following overview describes the typical tasks and contributions of each stakeholder group in a university-think tank, university-NGO, or university-foundation collaboration.

• Scientific lead role (universities)
• Policy translation and engagement role (think tanks / NGOs / foundations)
• Coordination and operational management role (research managers / PMOs / secretariats)
• Stakeholder interface role (joint responsibility but often led by external partners)
• Governance and decision-making role (shared or assigned structures)
• Funding and compliance responsibility (often hybrid but needs clarity)

Universities / research centers / academies

Universities primarily take responsibility for scientific leadership and the integrity of the evidence base. Scientists contribute the core evidence base, original research findings, or syntheses of academic literature. A key adaptation required of scientists is to shift from academic to policy-oriented communication: while academic publications foreground methodology and theoretical debate, policy-oriented outputs emphasize practical applicability and concrete recommendations. Scientists also need to adapt their timing: whereas research projects unfold over months or years, think tanks, NGOs, and foundations typically time their outputs to align with current policy debates and legislative calendars. Scientists benefit most from collaboration when they are willing to invest time in understanding their partner organization’s working culture and communication conventions.

Knowledge exchange officers / research managers

Research managers play a central coordinating role. They can map potential partners by assessing the quality, reach, and policy impact of their publications and events. They carry responsibility for operational delivery. They ensure that timelines, reporting requirements, and administrative processes are met, and they coordinate communication across institutions. They also manage budgets, contractual arrangements, and compliance obligations, providing continuity across partners and reducing administrative duplication. They handle legal and organizational matters like cooperation agreements, logo placement, cost-sharing arrangements, and institutional approval processes. They also serve as a bridge between the scientific team and the partner organization, helping to manage expectations and to ensure that timelines and deliverables are realistic for both sides.

Think tanks/ NGOs / foundations

Think tanks, NGOs, and foundations typically assume responsibility for policy translation and external engagement. They shape academic findings into formats that are usable in decision-making contexts, ensure that outputs are aligned with policy debates and timing, and lead or colead stakeholder outreach and dissemination. They also contribute policy intelligence by identifying relevant audiences and opportunities for engagement, helping to ensure that research is not only accurate but also strategically positioned to have impact.

Policymakers and other external stakeholders

Policymakers and their staff benefit from collaborations that produce timely, accessible, and actionable evidence. They are not operational partners in the collaboration but serve as the primary end users of the outputs. Their role is to define policy needs, provide feedback on relevance, and engage with evidence through consultations or policy processes. They are most likely to engage when outputs are framed around their specific decision-making needs and timed to coincide with relevant legislative or budgetary processes.

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