Case Study of the Second Impronta Granada meeting and Poniente Workshop

Summary: Key features in a nutshell:

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

Description

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

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

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

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

How does the format work?

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

1. Identification of needs & existing research

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

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

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

2. Active recruitment and visibility:

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

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

• Actor profiles. Researchers and other actors listed with affiliation, role, and County Council membership. The directory can be filtered by institution (University of Granada), profile (research center), and County Council affiliation on the Impronta Granada website: Impronta Granada Actor Profiles.
• UGR project entries: a catalogue of research projects geolocated on a map and categorised by County Council, allowing users to see which investigations are active in which comarcas: UGR Projects in County Councils.

3. Micropresentations as Engagement Trigger

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

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

4. Integration into the workshop discussion

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

Challenges

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

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

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

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

Tasks and resources

Scientists

• Tasks
  • Prepare and deliver micropresentations
  • Provide research data and visual materials relevant to regional issues
  • Engage in follow-up collaborative projects with local actors
• Required resources
  • Time allocation for research‑to‑action translation
  • Support materials (maps, visuals, data)
  • Ethical and institutional backing from UGR

Knowledge exchange managers and research managers

• Tasks
  • Maintain and update the Excel registry
  • Manage the “Actor Profiles” and “UGR Project Entries” on the Impronta Granada website.
  • Organize the micropresentation session
  • Facilitate communication between researchers and local stakeholders
• Requiredresources
  • Database and website maintenance tools
  • Logistical and technical support for events (venue, audiovisual equipment), follow-up communications

Policymakers

• Tasks
  • Attend micropresentations and workshops
  • Identify research relevance for local policies and projects
  • Provide feedback and possibly resources to support research-based initiatives
• Required resources
  • Institutional time allocation
  • Budgeting for pilot initiatives or collaborations
  • Channels for integrating research insights into municipal planning

Examples

Actor Profiles:

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

UGR Projects Listed by County Councils:

• The UGR Project Entries catalogue, geolocated by County Council, allows users to see where each research initiative is active – building a regional map of academic engagement and potential impact.
• Example: UGR Archaeology Project.
• The micropresentation session during the Second Impronta Granada meeting preceded the main Poniente Workshop, ensuring that researchers’ findings informed the debate and project proposals. According to the UGR news report, the event brought together institutional representatives, researchers, social agents, businesses, and citizens to tackle the main regional challenges with a focus on innovation, sustainability, and cultural/ecological wealth.

Sources and further reading

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

Case study details:

How was the format implemented?

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

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

Available resources (main tasks)

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

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

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

What works

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

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

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

What doesn’t

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

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

How  are the activities evaluated?

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

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

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

Summary: Key Features in a Nutshell

●        Objective: To create a clear framework for effectively connecting academic research with policy development, ensuring that research data is used to inform local decisions

●        Approach: Strategies include regular engagement between researchers and policymakers, data dissemination through interactive workshops and consultations, and leveraging digital platforms to ensure continuous feedback

●        Outcome: The development of data-driven policies that align with local development goals, improving public services, economic growth, and sustainability at the regional level

Description

Connecting research expertise with policymaking at local levels is essential for ensuring that academic knowledge directly informs policy decisions that affect regional development. The process involves bridging the gap between scientific research and practical, actionable solutions that policymakers can implement. By integrating research into decision-making processes, it becomes possible to create evidence-based policies that are not only grounded in data but also tailored to address local needs. This contribution explores strategies for connecting researchers with local policymakers, facilitating effective communication, and utilising research data to shape policy decisions.

How does the format work?

1.       Researcher-policymaker interaction. The process is typically initiated and coordinated by knowledge exchange managers or research managers within the university who act as intermediaries between researchers and policymakers. They establish regular communication channels – such as interactive workshops, consultation sessions or collaborative planning meetings – where researchers are invited to present evidence and data that can directly inform local policy decisions.

2.       Using research data to influence policymaking at local levels. A critical component of this process is ensuring that research data be relevant and accessible to policymakers. This can be achieved through the creation of policy briefs, data visualisation tools, and interactive reports that distill complex research findings into actionable insights. Researchers can work with local governments to highlight key findings that address specific regional issues such as sustainability, economic development, and public health. For instance, researchers from the University of Granada could present socioeconomic research on local development trends linked to green and digital transitions, such as sustainable land use, climate adaptation, the digitalisation of public services or the digital divide, as well as research on archaeological heritage preservation, and offer data-driven recommendations that align with policy goals for urban renewal or cultural conservation.

3.       Feedback and continuous engagement. A successful research-policy connection requires ongoing engagement. Researchers should not only share their findings but also actively participate in the policy implementation process. This can be done through dialogue-oriented follow-up consultations, such as meetings or workshops with policymakers, which may be complemented by written feedback or short analytical notes. These interactions allow researchers to assess how their evidence has been applied and to adjust strategies accordingly. Continuous interaction between researchers and policymakers enables policies to be refined as new data emerges, ensuring that decisions remain flexible and responsive to evolving local needs.

4.       Using digital platforms for ongoing interaction. Digital platforms, such as the Impronta Granada website, play a crucial role in maintaining visibility for research projects and ensuring that research findings be continuously accessible to local stakeholders. For example, platforms like these allow researchers to share project updates, findings, and recommendations, making it easy for local policymakers to track research progress and align their policy decisions with the most current data.

Challenges

●        Complexity of research data. Academic research can often be complex, and translating it into clear, actionable policy recommendations for local governments can be challenging. Ensuring that researchers are able to simplify their findings while maintaining their scientific integrity is key to this process. For example, quantitative research on soil health, climate adaptation, or digital inclusion may need to be translated into clear indicators, visual summaries or policy briefs that highlight implications for local planning or service provision, rather than detailed methodological explanations.

●        Stakeholder engagement. Engaging policymakers in the research process is not always straightforward. Local authorities may have competing priorities, and integrating research expertise into policy frameworks may require significant effort to overcome bureaucratic barriers.

Tasks and resources

Scientists

●        Tasks

○        Present research findings

○        Create policy briefs

○        Engage in collaborative workshops with policymakers

●        Required resources

○        Time for research dissemination and participation in events

○        Communication tools for presenting research data to policymakers

Knowledge exchange managers and research managers

●        Tasks

○        Coordinate researcher involvement with local policymakers

○        Facilitate workshops

○        Ensure that research is accessible and relevant to local governance needs

●        Required resources

○        Digital platforms for research dissemination and ongoing feedback

○        Facilitation support for organizing collaborative workshops and consultations

Policymakers

●        Tasks

o   Integrate research data into local policies and allocate resources for research-driven initiatives.

●        Required resources

○        Policy expertise to interpret research data and incorporate it into decision making

○        Financial and administrative resources to support research applications in local development projects

Examples

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

The UGR County Councils initiative played a crucial role in connecting researchers with policymakers. Through online preparatory meetings and interactive workshops, the initiative was coordinated by the University of Granada through its knowledge exchange structures, which invited UGR researchers to showcase their research projects. These projects were mapped in an Excel database and shared through the Impronta Granada website. The website allowed policymakers to view actor profiles of UGR researchers, filter them by county council, and understand how their research aligned with territorial development needs. These efforts culminated in the Second Impronta Granada Meeting, where researchers presented their projects in micropresentations, directly engaging with local governments and businesses to discuss real-world applications of their findings. This process ensured that research data was accessible, visible, and integrated into the policy-making process at local levels.

Sources and further reading

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

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 or Foundations

Summary: Key features in a nutshell (2-5 bullet points)

• Researchers at universities can benefit from collaboration with think tanks, NGOs or foundations by jointly organising policy events or publishing policy-relevant research findings, job placements, or pooling resources in terms of expertise, funding, and staff support.
• While scientists at universities can provide evidence because of original research or thorough synthesis of academic literature, policy experts at think tanks, NGOs or foundations can translate academic research findings into policy-relevant formats and identify possible target groups and windows of opportunity.
• Think tanks, NGOs and foundations are diverse entities: Think tanks can comprise advocacy think tanks, academic institutes or research institutes regularly conducting commissioned research for policymaking institutions. NGOs can comprise advocacy NGOs, service delivery NGOs, professional associations or business associations. Foundations provide grants NGOs or research institutions. They can also publish policy analyses or organise policy events.

How can scientists at universities collaborate with think tanks or NGOs?

Research at universities is structured around projects that produce original research and thorough synthesis of academic literature. Scientists at universities publish their research results in scientific journals. They often struggle with the following challenges:

• How to communicate research findings to policymakers? Researchers use scientific jargon while often not understanding policy jargon. Formats like policy briefs or policy events differ from academic publications or academic events.
• How to relate research expertise to policy demands? When to communicate research findings to policymakers? How to identify windows of opportunity? Regularly following policy debates is time-consuming. Scientists do not have access to the tacit knowledge in policymaking institutions.
• Which policymakers should be addressed? How should they be approached? Identifying potential target groups by browsing parliamentary committees and organisational charts of policymaking institutions, such as ministries, directorates-general of the European Commission, or political parties, is time-consuming.

By collaborating with think tanks, NGOs or foundations, scientists can save time and money while leveraging their policy impact. Think tanks, NGOs or foundations regularly interact with policymakers. They enjoy a degree of visibility many scientists or scientific institutions struggle to achieve. Policy experts at think tanks, NGOs, or foundations closely monitor policy debates. They know whom to approach and which buzzwords to use in their publications or events. Rather than spending time and money on publications or events that go unnoticed by policymakers, scientists can conduct research, publish results, or organise policy events in collaboration with think tanks, NGOs, or foundations.

Guiding questions for researchers or research managers, when considering collaboration with think tanks, NGOs, or foundations:

• Which think tanks, NGOs, or foundations work on policy issues in your area of expertise (e.g., environment, energy, security, health, digitalisation)?
• What kind of publications like policy briefs, policy reports, blog posts, or factsheets do think tanks, NGOs or foundations publish? Do you appreciate the content and quality of the publications?
• What type of events (e.g. panel discussions, background talks, workshops) do the think tanks, NGOs or foundations organise? Have you participated in one or several events? Did you like the organisation of the event? Did policymakers attend the events?
• What impression do the websites and social media accounts of the think tanks , NGOs or foundations leave? Do they post on a regular basis? Is the content regularly liked or shared by followers?
• What reputation do the think tanks, NGOs or foundations have? Do they lean towards one side of the political spectrum? Are they affiliated with political parties or stakeholders like business associations? How are they funded?
• Might a possible collaboration with think tanks, NGOs, or foundations damage your scientific reputation?

Guiding questions for researchers or research managers when discussing possible collaboration with think tanks or NGOs:

• What is the goal of the collaboration? Do you want to achieve policy change? Do you want to increase your visibility among policymakers? Do you want to conduct research in collaboration with the think tanks, NGO or foundation?
• Do the think tanks, NGOs, or foundations publish joint publications or guest contributions at all? Do they organise events in collaboration with other organisations?
• Does the collaboration involve sharing of costs (e.g., event catering, rent, printing costs)? Which costs have to be covered? What is your budget?
• How do the think tanks, NGOs, or foundations decide which publications to publish or events to organise? are the criteria for deciding on publications or joint events? Who decides on the structure, layout, and dates of the publications? Who decides on the guestlist for events?
• Does a cooperation agreement have to be signed? Is there an official policy regarding the display of logos and institutional affiliation?

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

Scientists

It can be challenging for scientists to understand the differences between academic publications and events, and policy-oriented publications, such as policy briefs. While sections on methods or theoretical debates are very important in academic debates, think tanks and NGOs stress the applicability of research findings and recommendations for policymakers. Also, while research projects are conducted over years at universities, think tanks, NGOs, or foundations usually factor in current policy debates when publishing or organising events.

Knowledge exchange officers/ research managers

Research managers can map possible partners among think tanks, NGOs or foundations by assessing the quality, reach and impact of their publications or events. They can sort out legal or organisational issues like the display of logos or the sharing of costs.

Sources and further reading

Please add URL or publications, if applicable.

See also contributions on the following issues

The toolkit’s editors will add the information in this section.

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