What is the ENGAGEgreen Policy Engagement Toolkit?

The ENGAGEgreen Policy Engagement Toolkit offers a comprehensive overview of the diverse formats scientists, research managers, and knowledge mobilisers can leverage to bring academic expertise into policymaking.

While numerous guides already cover traditional practices like writing policy briefs or giving parliamentary evidence, our toolkit fulfils a distinct, broader purpose based on four core motivations:

1. A Multidimensional Definition: In line with the University of Oxford’s widely used definition, we view policy engagement as an umbrella term describing ‘the many ways researchers and policymakers connect and explore common interests at various stages in their respective research and policymaking processes.’ Engagement extends far beyond policy briefs; it encompasses pairing schemes, policy fellowships, hackathons, and research site visits. Structured, easily accessible overviews of these formats remain rare, especially cross-border examples that transcend regional or national silos.
2. Addressing Real-World Constraints: Academic policy engagement is often hampered by time constraints, funding limits, and institutional recognition hurdles. While this toolkit cannot eliminate structural barriers, it offers practical decision-making guidance to help users select the right format for their specific capacity, saving valuable time and resources.
3. An Inclusive Stakeholder Approach: Effective policy engagement relies on strong institutional ecosystems. This toolkit addresses researchers, policymakers, research managers, and knowledge mobilisers alike. Clarifying roles and mutual needs strengthens institutional capacity and support structures.
4. Bidirectional Knowledge Exchange: While incorporating academic research improves policy quality, engaging with policymakers simultaneously generates fresh, real-world research questions. We explicitly treat policy engagement as a two-way street.

How is the Toolkit Structured?

The toolkit is designed not as a rigid recipe book or a theoretical treatise, but as an adaptable collection of modular chapters. Each chapter delivers:

• A concise breakdown of a specific policy engagement format or structure.
• Concrete, real-world case studies contributed by scientists, research managers, knowledge mobilizers, or policymakers.

These practical examples illustrate that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to science-policy interaction.

Is Policy Engagement Too Time-Consuming?

Not necessarily. Major commitments—such as drafting a 500-page commissioned report or serving on a multi-year advisory board—are highly time-intensive. However, many agile, lightweight formats exist.

The matrix below illustrates the typical net time investment required for various engagement formats:

Note on Support Structures: Time investment depends heavily on institutional support. A researcher drafting a report or organizing a workshop entirely alone faces a vastly different workload than one supported by professional event managers and knowledge brokers.

Key Features of the Toolkit

• Pragmatic, Non-Dogmatic Guidelines: Formats are described based on general practical standards rather than rigid rules. For example, while we define policy briefs as short texts (typically 2–6 pages), longer variants exist in practice.
• Focus on Cross-Cutting Skills: Alongside specific formats, the toolkit addresses essential strategic skills: reaching target audiences, timing input effectively according to political cycles, understanding institutional contexts, and evaluating impact.
• Reflective Case Studies: Each chapter features real-world examples allowing practitioners to reflect on what worked well, what failed, and what they would adapt in hindsight.
• Multilingual & Context-Sensitive: The toolkit is published in English, Czech, French, German, Italian, and Spanish. Content varies slightly across languages to reflect regional policy cultures (e.g., explicit policy recommendations are standard in Anglo-Saxon policy briefs but less common in German-speaking contexts). English versions are released first, followed by translated editions.
• Realistic Resource Estimation: Required time is measured in net working hours dedicated to a single iteration of a format (excluding external delays or waiting periods). To maintain relevance across different national spending structures, monetary estimates are deliberately omitted in most cases.

Sources and Further Reading

University of Oxford (2024), Policy Engagement: What is Policy Engagement? University of Oxford Policy Engagement Network. Retrieved April 10, 2024.

Help Us Expand the Toolkit

This toolkit is a living document based on desk research, practitioner feedback, and practical experience rather than a formal academic study. Because policy engagement cultures vary widely across countries, we actively encourage international contributions.

If a format operates differently in your national context, or if you would like to contribute a case study, we welcome your input!

Get in touch or contribute:

Contact Tome Sandevski at science-policy@pvw.uni-frankfurt.de

Key features in a nutshell

• Avoid the ‘impact trap’: Direct policy change is rare, multicausal, and slow. Treat it as a potential long-term outcome rather than the sole benchmark of success
• Value the stepping stones: Building visibility, trust, and personal networks are vital standalone goals that create the foundation for future policy interactions
• Engagement is a two-way street: Understanding policymaking (better) is an important yet often overlooked, goal of policy engagement; policy engagement can enrich academic research by granting access to field data, revealing fresh research questions and testing the real-world relevance of hypotheses
• Embrace open-ended dialogues: Informing policymakers early – even with preliminary or non-definitive findings – helps frame emerging issues long before crises or legislation occur

Why do the goals matter?

Before diving into formats, actors, and institutions, crosscutting institutions, and teaching and learning methods, every policy engagement journey must start with a fundamental question: What are we actually trying to achieve?

In line with the University of Oxford’s widely used definition, we view policy engagement as an umbrella term describing ‘the many ways researchers and policymakers connect and explore common interests at various stages in their respective research and policymaking processes.’

To properly plan, resource, and evaluate these connections, both researchers and knowledge mobilisers must clarify their specific goals upfront. In practice, misaligned or unrealistic expectations are the single biggest driver of frustration in science-policy interactions.

The spectrum of policy engagement goals

Rather than viewing engagement through an ‘all-or-nothing’ lens, it helps if we understand goals as a spectrum ranging from foundational network-building to direct policy influence:

1. Direct policy change: Highly ambitious and rarely immediate

Seeing policymakers take up your recommendations is the goal most researchers think of first – and also the hardest to achieve for two reasons. First, policy change is rarely attributable to a single science-policy initiative: researchers, NGOs, and the media often all contribute to a shift over time, making any one contribution hard to isolate. Second, policy change doesn’t happen in a vacuumbut depends on several preconditions, which are themselves worth treating as goals in their own right (see below). Researchers and knowledge mobilisers should avoid treating policy change as the only legitimate goal of engagement; doing so is a recipe for frustration.

2. Raising visibility, building trust, and expanding networks

If you look at the researchers who regularly sit on advisory boards, conduct commissioned research, or testify at parliamentary hearings, you will notice the same names appearing repeatedly. Why? Beyond their academic achievements, their involvement relies heavily on (institutional) visibility, long-standing trust, and established personal networks. Raising your profile and building mutual trust are critical standalone goals that require time and continuity. Acknowledging this prevents frustration when launching new policy brief series or hosting inaugural policy events.

3. Mutual learning, understanding policymaking and gaining ideas for your own research: Understanding how policymaking works helps researchers explain the relevance of their findings, draft realistic policy recommendations or options, and identify the right audience – Members of Parliament, policy officers in ministries – along with the right channels and windows of opportunity. No researcher becomes a policy expert overnight, and that’s perfectly fine. While formal documents like government strategies, party platforms, and policy analyses from think tanks, NGOs, and associations are publicly available, the implicit, unwritten knowledge of how things actually work can only be picked up by talking to policymakers directly. Enabling open conversation with policymakers, purely to learn how policymaking works, is therefore an important goal in its own right. Policy engagement can also benefit your own research directly. Talking to policymakers can surface new perspectives that lead to new research questions or hypotheses and can open doors to data, interview partners, or institutions willing to disseminate a survey on your behalf.

4. Open-ended informing of policymakers
   Research findings don’t always translate into policy change. They might contradict the government’s current priorities, or a fast-moving policy situation might outpace findings that aren’t yet fully robust – think of the COVID-19 pandemic as an example. Researchers may also arrive at important findings while remaining genuinely unsure what policy recommendation follows. Should researchers hold back from engaging with policymakers in cases like these? Certainly not. It takes policymakers time to build up an understanding of a salient issue, and the sooner they have access to scientific expertise – caveats and all – the better.

Sources and further reading

University of Oxford (2024), Policy Engagement. Accessed on 10 April 2024.

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

Policy engagement

In line with the University of Oxford’s widely used definition, we view policy engagement as an umbrella term describing ‘the many ways researchers and policymakers connect and explore common interests at various stages in their respective research and policymaking processes.’

We regard policy engagement as a more comprehensive and two-way (bidirectional) approach than traditional science advice. It encompasses diverse outcomes – such as informing policy change, building networks, mutual learning, or codesigning research agendas – and can take place through both formal and informal channels.

Policymakers

We define policymakers broadly as individuals involved in analysing, assessing, planning, drafting, and implementing policies. Not all policymakers are direct decision makers (such as politicians or heads of institutions).

Our broad definition covers:

• Elected politicians (e.g., Members of Parliament, ministers)
• Political staff and advisers
• Staffers in political parties
• Civil servants and officials in local, regional, national, or EU institutions and international organisations

This definition spans all branches of government and administrative levels.

Academic researchers

We define academic researchers as individuals affiliated with academic institutions, such as universities or independent research institutes, who conduct fundamental or applied research.

Unlike researchers in think tanks or consultancies, conducting policy analysis and engaging with policymakers is usually not the primary ‘bread and butter’ business of academic scholars. For most academics, policy engagement is an additional activity undertaken alongside core responsibilities such as conducting research, teaching, managing projects, peer reviewing, and serving in learned societies.

To account for different career stages and capacities, we apply the European Framework for Research Careers (R1–R4):

• R1 – First-stage researchers: Doctoral candidates or researchers conducting research under supervision
• R2 – Recognised researchers: Postdoctoral researchers or scholars holding a PhD (or equivalent competence) who are developing academic independence
• R3 – Established researchers: Independent researchers who formulate their own research agendas, secure third-party funding, and lead research groups
• R4 – Leading researchers: Senior scholars who are recognised as pioneers and leaders in their research field by their peers

Research managers

Research managers are professional, non-research staff within academic institutions who support scholars throughout the research lifecycle. Their expertise spans grant application support, project management, communications, impact assessment, or institutional strategy development.

In the realm of policy engagement, this group includes knowledge mobilisers and brokers (who build bridges between researchers and external policymakers), grant officers (who help integrate policy engagement plans into funding proposals), and strategy officers (who embed science-policy interaction into university strategies).

Sources and further reading

Breckon, Jonathan, Sarah Chaytor, Stephen Clarke, Helen Durrant, and Olivia Stevenson (2025), Hidden Talents: Core Competencies of Knowledge Mobilisers Working in Public Policy. London: Capabilities in Academic Policy Engagement (CAPE).

Council of the European Union (2023), Council Recommendation on a European Framework to Attract and Retain Research, Innovation and Entrepreneurial Talents in Europe. Brussels: Council of the European Union. Retrieved April 10, 2025.

Hepworth, B. (2025), P is for Policymakers. Transforming Evidence Blog. Retrieved April 10, 2025.

Reed, Mark S. (2024), The Researcher’s Guide to Influencing Policy. London and New York: Routledge.

Stevenson, Olivia (2019), Translating Research into Policy – Who Are ‘The Policymakers’? UCL Policy Lab Blog. Retrieved May 5, 2024.

University of Oxford (2024), Policy Engagement: What is Policy Engagement? University of Oxford Policy Engagement Network. Retrieved April 10, 2024.

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