Content - Policy Engagement Toolkit

“It’s Not Rocket Science”: Establishing a German Community of Practice on Policy Engagement

Written by Julia Hanh. Posted in Actors & Institutions cs - english, Content. No Comments on “It’s Not Rocket Science”: Establishing a German Community of Practice on Policy Engagement

Key features in a nutshell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possible Challenges and How to Address Them

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

Tasks and Resources

For knowledge exchange officers / research managers:

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

References

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

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

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Do you want to share your experience in policy engagement? Do you think about contributing to the policy engagement toolkit? Feel free to contact Tome Sandevski via science-policy@pvw.uni-frankfurt.de

From Mission Statements to Mailing Lists

Written by Chloe Hill. Posted in Actors & Institutions OV, Content. No Comments on From Mission Statements to Mailing Lists

Ten Ways Research Institutions and Learned Societies Can Support Policy Engagement

Key features in a nutshell

Research institutions and learned societies can actively shape academic policy engagement rather than leaving it to individual researchers’ initiative — through organisational and financial support, training programmes, internal recognition structures
Institutions and learned societies don’t need large budgets to get started: while employing a knowledge mobiliser or brokerage team can be incredibly beneficial, many effective initiatives, such as curating policymaker mailing lists, offering funding-application advice, or hosting lunch talks, require limited resources and can be embedded into existing structures.

By recognising policy engagement in career progression, funding decisions, and institutional strategy, research institutions and learned societies can move it from a marginal activity to a core part of their institutional mission, alongside research and teaching.

How can research institutions and learned societies promote academic policy engagement?

Provide researchers with policy insights: Researchers generally do not have the time to understand policymaking processes, policy priorities, windows of opportunity, and knowledge exchange formats. Knowledge mobilisers at research institutions and learned societies — such as policy engagement officers, communication staff, or outreach managers — can support researchers in this regard. By sharing policy developments, key priorities, and calls for evidence, these knowledge mobilisers and research institutions more broadly can help their communities understand where and when more scientific evidence is needed by policymakers. This information can be shared through webinars, newsletters, and information hubs.
Support knowledge synthesis, translation, and exchange: In addition to sharing relevant policy developments, knowledge mobilisers can help researchers translate academic expertise into policy formats like policy briefs, policy reports, or presentations. They can help researchers identify relevant policymakers in parliaments, ministries, EU institutions, or international organisations and facilitate their initial interactions. They can also provide hands-on support, such as organising policy events, curating mailing lists, or editing policy publications.

Beyond supporting individual researchers, research institutions and learned societies can create and facilitate groups of researchers to provide scientific evidence. These groups or task forces are often created to provide evidence on a specific policy area and ideally include researchers from a range of different, relevant scientific disciplines. Administrative support from institutional knowledge mobilisers helps these groups by coordinating meetings, strategically steering the direction of group activities and tasks, and disseminating the scientific evidence to the intended policy audience.

Provide financial support: Research institutions and learned societies can establish internal funds for researchers to engage in policy activities, such as organising policy events or travelling to capitals to engage with policymakers. Goethe University Frankfurt, for instance, provides funds specifically for events in Brussels. Policy engagement can also be built into performance agreements between university leadership and academic units or considered as a criterion for performance-related pay — mechanisms that exist, in various forms, across many European higher education systems (e.g., the Rewards and Recognition programme in the Netherlands).
Facilitate opportunities for two–way dialogues: In addition to providing financial support for policy activities, research institutions and learned societies can also facilitate these initiatives and create spaces for individual researchers to engage with policymakers. For example, the European Geoscience Union (EGU) coordinates the EGU Science-Policy Pairing Scheme that provides researchers with the opportunity to work alongside a Member of the European Parliament for one week.
Inform grant applicants about policy engagement during the funding application process: Not every research topic lends itself to this, but researchers who consider policy engagement early on can meaningfully build it into applications and, later, into the funded project itself. Indeed, many funding bodies now require research projects to demonstrate societal impact witpolicy engagement constituting one potential impact dimension. Some research institutes and learned societies, especially those with Research Funding Officers, may be able to provide advice to researchers on available funding and how to integrate policy engagement into research projects and grant applications.
Cultivate internal recognition: Although providing science advice and integrating research into policy requires expertise, skills, and time, it often isn’t recognised or rewarded by research institutions. Research institutions and learned societies can internally communicate the importance of academic policy engagement via mission statements and institutional strategies. They can track policy engagement activities and provide recognition for achievements or awards in policy engagement, similar to achievements in research, teaching, or academic service. Research institutions can also host low-cost, virtual or in-person formats, such as lunch talks, where researchers share insights from their engagement in advisory bodies, policy events, or commissioned research.
Teaching load reductions: Reducing teaching obligations can give researchers limited additional time for policy engagement. Goethe University Frankfurt, for example, allows researchers serving on national or international policy advisory bodies a reduction of up to two teaching hours per week.
Include relevant training in professional development programmes: Navigating the science-policy interface requires distinct skills that researchers rarely acquire during their PhDs. Researchers often learn the skills required for engaging with policymakers on their own, and building this understanding can be time-consuming. By providing structured training and coaching, research institutions and learned societies can not only speed up the learning process, but also ensure best practice guidelines are taught. Alternatively, Institutions can integrate policy engagement modules directly into graduate academies or human resources development programmes.
Advocating for funding: While national governments and the EU stress the importance of science for policy, securing long-term funding for policy engagement continues to be a challenge. Research institutions and learned societies can advocate for their communities by outlining the importance of long-term funding for policy engagement togovernments, the EU, and funding organisations. Encouraging examples exist in Europe. For example, the Universities Policy Engagement Network in the UK has been awarded a grant of about £5.9 million by Research England, the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), and UK Research and Innovation, to improve UK universities’ policy engagement abilities.
Advocating for the reform of research assessment: Supporting research assessment reform is another way in which research institutions and learned socieites can advocate for their communities. A true systemic shift requires rewriting the rules of academic career progression, which have historically been dominated strictly by publication volume and grant acquisition. Through global coalitions like CoARA (Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment), research institutions are actively working to broaden evaluation metrics. While research institutions and learned societies can engage in both science advice and advocacy, both activities should be distinct and separate from one another to ensure that any scientific evidence provided is seen as independent and unbiased.

Sources and further reading

Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) (2022), The Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment, accessed on 13 August 2026.

European Geosciences Union (EGU) (2026), Policy Overview, accessed on 13 August 2026.

European Geosciences Union (EGU) (2026), Geo Policy, accessed on 13 August 2026.

Lambertucci, S. A., et al. (2025), Supporting Researchers’ Engagement in International Science–Policy Bodies. Nature Sustainability, 8, 1–3.

Recognition and Rewards Programme (2023), Room for everyone’s talent in practice. Road map. How we are shaping a new system of recognition and rewards, accessed on 13 August 2026.

von Schneidemesser, E., et al. (2020), Prepare Scientists to Engage in Science-Policy. Environmental Science & Technology, 54(23), 14787–14789.

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Built to Be Skimmed: Nine Ways to Make Long Policy Reports Work for Busy Policymakers

Written by Tome Sandevski. Posted in Content, Written Formats OV. No Comments on Built to Be Skimmed: Nine Ways to Make Long Policy Reports Work for Busy Policymakers

Key features in a nutshell

Long policy reports (50+ pp.) are usually read entirely through their summaries; include multitiered summaries (short summaries, long summaries, chapter summaries)
Structure your content for skimming and for AI summarisation tools, which many readers now rely on instead of reading the full document
Visuals, clear headings, and a dedicated website offering reusable slides and interactive features can turn a dense PDF into something people actually explore
Making a report reader-friendly takes extra time, but ithat’s a minor investment compared to the months or years spent producing the underlying research

How does the format work?

Long policy reports (anything roughly between 50 and 500 pages) provide deep, rigorous analyses of complex issues. Some are highly specific studies that individual researchers or research teams are commissioned to conduct for a small, specialised readership within a ministry. Others are flagship publications – annual reports from expert bodies, scientific organisations, or policy institutions – that attract major media attention and shape public debate, such as the IPCC Assessment Reports, the OECD’s PISA reports, or the World Happiness Report.

Authorship isn’t limited to researchers, either: practitioners, and former senior policymakers themselves are often part of the author team. Many of the best-known reports even end up informally named after the head of the expert group behind them, think of the Draghi Report or the Liikanen Report.

Challenges and how to address them:

The core problem is obvious: Who actually reads a 200-page policy report? Decision makers and civil servants operate under extreme time pressure. Expecting them to read a 100-page document cover-to-cover is unrealistic. Most policymakers will, at best, skim key sections, read summaries, or delegate the briefing process to staff. To ensure your research drives real policy impact, apply these 10 practical tips for reader-friendly report design:

Assume that policymakers and other readers will use generative AI to summarise the content and structure the publication accordingly. Highlight important sections by using key words like ‘key findings’ or ‘very important’.

Design for AI summarisation, not just human readers
Assume that policymakers and other readers will increasingly rely on generative AI tools to summarise your report before they read it themselves. Help the AI help you: use clear, descriptive semantic headings, include explicit ‘Key Findings’ callout boxes, and avoid embedding crucial data solely inside images or scanned graphics. Then test this yourself: run your report through a few different generative AI tools (e.g. ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini) and ask for a summary. How satisfied are you with the result? Did it pick up your key findings or miss them? It’s also worth asking the AI tools directly how they approach summarising long documents since that can reveal which structural cues (headings, callout boxes, bullet points) they actually rely on.
Summaries are everything.
Present your key findings in an executive summary of 1–2 pages. If the report runs over 100 pages, provide two: a short executive summary (1–4 pages) and a longer one (5–20 pages). This isn’t unusual, the Stern Review, for instance, published both a short and a full executive summary alongside its full 579-page report. Add chapter summaries of 1–2 pages for any chapter longer than 15 pages. Always assume the summaries are the only part that will actually be read – and invest finetuning them accordingly.
Use visuals – but only if they are essential
Use flowcharts, comparative tables, timelines, and infographics but ensure they add genuine analytical value rather than serving as decorative stock imagery. Brand each visual element with the report’s title/citation and allow visuals to be easily copied or downloaded from your website for use in briefings or presentations (example: OECD PISA 2022 key results infographics).
Make the text itself easy to navigate
Use clear, informative headings and subheadings, bold key terms and headings, and lean on bullet points and numbered lists rather than dense paragraphs.
Keep the main text lean
Keep the core narrative focused on findings and policy implications. Move methods, literature reviews, contributor lists, glossaries, references, and indexes into an annex.
Build a website around the report, not just a PDF
If your resources allow, don’t stop at uploading a long PDF – present the executive summary, chapter summaries, key figures, and press release as standalone sections on a dedicated website (for example, the IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report site). AI chatbots (such as the World Energy Outlook 2025) or other interactive elements like dashboards (e.g., World Happiness Report) can help readers explore the findings on their own terms. Explainer videos (for example, World Economic Outlook), podcast episodes (such as World Development Report), or even comics (e.g., German Advisory Council on Global Change) can work well for readers who’d rather watch or listen than read.
Provide reusable slide decks
Add a slide deck summarising your key messages and release it under a Creative Commons licence so policymakers can freely reuse it in their own presentations (e.g., the IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report site).
Bring in a professional designer if the budget allows
Well-formatted tables, thoughtful colour schemes, and professional layouts significantly increase readability.
Actively disseminate findings
Putting the report on your website isn’t enough. Write press releases, share the findings on social media, conduct one-to-one briefings, and organise a policy event to present them in person. Think about the dissemination from the outset, not just at the end. Include professional communicators or knowledge exchange staff in your team.

A final thought
Writing a lengthy policy report takes months, sometimes years. A few additional weeks spent making it genuinely reader-friendly and planning dissemination properly is a small price to pay for ensuring the key findings actually reach policymakers.

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

Researchers

Conduct original research, synthesise existing knowledge, or both
Condense findings into multitiered summaries
Draft visual elements
Collaborate closely with support staff such as communications staff or graphic designers
Develop a dissemination strategy from the outset

Research managers and knowledge mobilisers (support staff)

Structure the report and design the layout, visual elements, and landing pages
Draft press releases and social media posts
Plan dissemination early on
Coordinate the author team

Policymakers

Provide funding for support structures such as secretariats, research staff, graphic designers, and communications officers
Provide feedback on how they actually read lengthy policy reports – researchers often don’t know this unless policymakers tell them

Sources and further reading

German Advisory Council on Global Change / WBGU (2014), The Great Transformation. Climate – Can We Beat the Heat? (comic), Berlin. Accessed 12 June 2026.

Helliwell, J. F., Layard, R., Sachs, J. D., De Neve, J.-E., Aknin, L. B., & Wang, S. (Eds.) (2026), World Happiness Report 2026. Accessed 12 June 2026.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2023), AR6 Synthesis Report. Accessed 8 June 2026.

International Energy Agency (2025), World Energy Outlook 2025. Accessed 8 June 2026.

International Monetary Fund (2026), World Economic Outlook. Accessed 12 June 2026.

OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Key Results (infographic). Accessed 12 June 2026.

Stern, N.; Cabinet Office – HM Treasury (2007), The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

World Bank Group (2025), World Development Report 2025: Standards for Development. Accessed 12 June 2026.

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Bringing Green Transition Research to Brussels

Written by Tome Sandevski. Posted in Content, Dialogue-Oriented Formats CS. No Comments on Bringing Green Transition Research to Brussels

Lessons from a Two-Day Event at the Representation of Hesse to the EU

Key features in a nutshell

A two-day event in Brussels combining an informal dinner, a workshop with European Commission policy officers, and two panel discussions – around 60 policymakers and practitioners registered, with approximately 40 attending on the main day, along with researchers from three universities
Built on an existing relationship with the Representation of the State of Hesse to the EU, which had already hosted several policy events for the organisers since 2018 – a head start well worth factoring in when planning a first Brussels event from scratch
A professional external moderator kept the two 45-minute panel discussions on time and on track, freeing the organisers from having to moderate their own event

How did the format work?

Step 1: Conceptualisation

The Policy Engagement Unit at Goethe University Frankfurt – which coordinates the Erasmus+ project ENGAGEgreen and the Mercator Science-Policy Fellowship Programme of the Rhine-Main Universities (TU Darmstadt, Goethe University Frankfurt, and Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz) – had organised various policy events at the Representation of the State of Hessen to the EU since 2018. In September 2023, the Policy Engagement Unit approached the Regional Representation of Hessen regarding a possible event on green transitions. The Representation of the State of Hessen to the EU advised on the topics of particular policy relevance in Brussels.

The Policy Engagement Unit at Goethe University Frankfurt and the Regional Representation of Hessen codesigned the two-day event, scheduling it for 11 and 12 March 2024.

Core aims of the event:

Provide an applied overview of cutting-edge research on technical innovations for green transitions and political and financial frameworks for the roll-out of key technologies
Connect researchers from Goethe-University Frankfurt, TU Darmstadt, and University of Vic directly with policymaking professionals from the European Commission, regional and national governments, as well as representatives from NGOs and business associations
Provide an overview of the need for expertise in the European Commission to enable our researchers to better identify engagement opportunities and possible engagement formats

Step 2: Planning & targeted outreach

The Regional Representation of Hesse maintains an excellent mailing list, built up through its own policy events. Researchers and research managers from the three participating universities also personally invited Brussels-based practitioners they already knew.

Panellists and Commission experts: The Policy Engagement Unit identified and invited representatives from various Directorates-General of the European Commission in late 2023 and early 2024, drawing on two complementary approaches: personal contacts built up over previous Brussels events, and a systematic review of the relevant Directorates-General’s organisation charts (see our article on key information sources for more on this technique)
Panel audience: The Regional Representation and the Policy Engagement Unit sent out official invitations in early February 2024.
Registration: By early February 2024, around 60 policymakers and other Brussels-based practitioners had registered.
Logistics: The Regional Representation’s dedicated events team organised catering and prepared the event room.
Moderation: With two 45-minute panel discussions on the agenda, the organisers decided early on to work with an experienced external moderator able to enforce time limits, rather than moderating themselves; the Policy Engagement Unit held a preparatory call with the moderator, Kai Bruns, and provided a briefing with panellist biographies and guiding questions
Panellist preparation: The Policy Engagement Unit at Goethe University Frankfurt briefed all panellists ahead of the event

Step 3: Implementation

The event opened with an informal dinner on 11 March 2024. This was a deliberately separate, smaller gathering — around 12 representatives from Frankfurt, Darmstadt, and Vic Universities, the European Commission, and various think tanks and NGOs, all practitioners the organisers already knew personally, rather than a subset of the 60 people registered for the main day.

The main programme followed on 12 March 2024, with approximately 40 people in attendance:

10:00–12:00: Workshop with policy officers from two Directorates-General of the European Commission, who discussed their needs for scientific expertise and the channels they use to source it; participating researchers gained direct insight into the day-to-day work of European Commission policy officers
12:00–12:30: Light lunch
12:30–12:45: Welcome address and introduction by Claus-Peter Appel (Deputy Head of the Representation of the State of Hesse to the EU) and Professor Michèle Knodt (Chair of Comparative Politics and European Integration, TU Darmstadt)
12:45–14:15: Panel discussions

Panel 1: Technical innovations for green transitions

Professor Christian Beidl, Chair of Internal Combustion Engines and Powertrain Systems, TU Darmstadt
Dr Bernd Biervert, Head of Unit ‘Planet, People and Science for Policy – Clean Planet, Clean Energy Transitions’, DG Research and Innovation, European Commission
Dr Mabel Mora Garrido, Leader of the Environmental Technologies research line, BETA Technological Centre, University of Vic – Central University of Catalonia
Professor Anna Possner, Chair of Atmospheric Physics and Climate, Goethe University Frankfurt

Panel 2: Political and financial frameworks for developing and deploying key technologies

Professor Tobias Berg, Chair of Banking, Goethe University Frankfurt
Beatrice Coda, Seconded Head of Unit to CINEA, CEF Energy and Renewable Energy Financing Mechanism, DG Energy, European Commission
Dr Cristian Kanovits, Team Leader, DG Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Professor Michèle Knodt, Chair of Comparative Politics and European Integration, Institute for Political Science, TU Darmstadt

Step 4: Post-event follow-up

Within a week of the event, the Policy Engagement Unit shared the contact details for participating researchers and policy professionals. Several researchers and policy professionals have since stayed in touch, exchanging updates on new research findings and EU-level policy developments.

Challenges and how to address them

Overall, the event ran very smoothly, but it’s worth explaining why, so that other universities can calibrate their own expectations. The Policy Engagement Unit at Goethe University Frankfurt had already been collaborating with researchers and research managers at Frankfurt, TU Darmstadt, and the University of Vic through the ENGAGEgreen project and the Mercator Science-Policy Fellowship Programme and had organised three previous policy events at the Regional Representation of Hesse to the EU. This meant established working relationships, shared routines, and mutual trust were already in place before planning even began: researchers could focus entirely on presenting their findings, while the Policy Engagement Unit and the Representation’s event managers handled the organisational side.

Universities without this kind of existing infrastructure should expect the first edition of a comparable event to require noticeably more coordination time, simply to build the working relationships this team could already draw on.

It’s also worth understanding what makes the Regional Representation of Hesse such an effective partner: it organises more than 100 policy events per year, has a dedicated events team and a well-maintained mailing list, and is well known among Brussels policymakers. Its location – within walking distance of the European Parliament and most Directorates-General of the European Commission – makes it a popular venue. The main practical constraint is availability: the Representation needs to be booked at least six months before the intended event date. This is a calendar constraint on securing the venue and date — it does not reflect how much actual work went into planning the event. For that, see the resource table below.

A tip for first-time organisers
If your institution is organising a policy event in Brussels for the first time, get in touch with your regional or national representation in Brussels and ask if they would be willing to host the event on their premises and support you with the organisation. Most German federal states and many regions and countries across Europe maintain such representation offices in Brussels – and they often have a genuine interest in hosting substantive events themselves since it also raises their own profile. Beyond a venue, it’s worth asking specifically what else they can offer: access to their existing mailing list (far more efficient than building one from scratch), an in-house events team, and catering – all of which can significantly reduce both your costs and your organisational workload, as this event shows.

Tasks and resources

Researchers

Prepared accessible policy pitches and answered questions concisely during the short panel discussions
Codeveloped the thematic scope and suggested relevant expert contacts

Research managers and knowledge mobilisers

Liaised with the Regional Representation of Hesse to the EU and approached potential panellists at the three universities and relevant Directorates-General
Handled mailing lists, invitation workflows, catering, and social media coverage

Policymakers

Took part in the informal dinner, the workshop, and the panel discussions
Answered questions from researchers and the audience during the panels
Established direct contacts with academic researchers for long-term knowledge exchange

A note on costs

Total expenditure – including catering, travel, and moderation – came to around €7,500. The Representation of the State of Hesse to the EU provided the event venue and beverages free of charge, which significantly reduced overall costs.

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Meeting Policymakers Where They Work

Written by Tome Sandevski. Posted in Content, Dialogue-Oriented Formats CS. No Comments on Meeting Policymakers Where They Work

How In-Person Meetings Drive Science-Policy Engagement. Lessons learned from the Rhine-Main Science Dialogue in Germany

Description

Key features in a nutshell

High reach: The Rhine-Main Science Dialogue enabled 81 researchers to conduct 166 face-to-face meetings with 177 policymaking professionals across 17 regional government institutions in Mainz and Wiesbaden, Germany
New connections: The format proved exceptionally effective at connecting civil servants and scientists who had no prior experience with science-policy engagement
Broad inclusivity: Engaged researchers across all disciplines – including STEM, social sciences, humanities, business, and economics – with staff across diverse regional ministries and public bodies

How does the format work?

The core concept is simple: researchers visit policymakers in their own offices and meeting rooms in regional institutions in the state capitals of Mainz and Wiesbaden.

Mainz is the capital of Rhineland-Palatinate (population approximately 4 million), with about 2,500 ministry officials
Wiesbaden is the capital of Hesse (population approximately 6.4 million), with over 3,000 public sector staff across various regional institutions

The step-by-step process:

Institutional buy-in: The Policy Engagement Office representing the three Rhine-Main Universities approaches regional ministries and public authorities to pitch the initiative.
Expert matchmaking: Participating institutions receive curated lists of interested researchers. These lists detail each scientist’s field of expertise, available dates, and links to their academic profiles.
Selection & confirmation: HR and departmental managers circulate the lists to their teams. Staff select the researchers they wish to meet via email or an online form, adding brief background notes on the specific policy topics currently on their agenda.
Agile scheduling: The Policy Engagement Office forwards meeting requests to the scientists who can accept or decline based on fit and schedule.
On-site conversations: Meetings take place on-site at the respective ministry or agency. Aside from providing meeting spaces, host institutions incur no financial costs.

Key results & impact

Track record at a glance:

81 scientists participating
166 face-to-face meetings conducted
177 policymakers and civil servants engaged
17 regional policymaking institutions involved

Post-engagement surveys conducted by the Policy Engagement Office at Goethe University Frankfurt revealed high satisfaction levels and strong demand for ongoing dialogue:

Breaking new ground: 60% of participating policymakers and 50% of researchers reported having little to no prior contact with each other before the scheme
Long-term engagement: Around 20% of participants agreed to stay in touch for future collaboration
Overwhelming approval: Over 95% of all participants expressed a desire to conduct similar face-to-face meetings in the future and actively recommended the format to their colleagues

Rollout & Practical Implementation

In November 2023, the Rhine-Main Universities gauged interest among regional institutions in Mainz and Wiesbaden. Demand was high in both capitals. However, due to government reshuffles following state elections in Hesse, the alliance decided to launch an initial pilot run in Mainz in March 2024, followed by another run in Mainz and Wiesbaden in September and October 2024.

Tasks and resources

Scientists

The Policy Engagement Office asks all participating researchers to read the FAQ list and review the websites of the policymaking institutions they will visit. Each meeting typically lasts one hour. Since Mainz and Wiesbaden are both close to the Rhine-Main Universities, travel time is minimal, and researchers are provided with public transport tickets – making the format both time- and cost-efficient for knowledge exchange.

Knowledge exchange managers and research managers

The Policy Engagement Office is responsible for informing policymaking institutions and researchers about the format and available dates via email and the FAQ list. It also prepares the online forms or spreadsheets used to collect areas of expertise, interests, and available time slots, and matches researchers with policymakers accordingly. Finally, it conducts a brief feedback survey among all participants after each round of meetings. Organising the format took around six weeks (full-time equivalent), plus roughly €900 for a joint lunch at the State Chancellery in Mainz – making it a highly efficient format overall.

Policymakers

Policymakers review the list of participating researchers and select whom they would like to meet. Meetings take place either in their own office or in a meeting room within their institution. Ahead of the meeting, policymakers are asked to look at the relevant researcher’s website and prepare questions they would like to discuss.

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Science Sparring: Policy Red Teaming Developed in the Finnish Academy of Science and Letters

Written by Laura Väliniemi. Posted in Content, Dialogue-Oriented Formats CS. No Comments on Science Sparring: Policy Red Teaming Developed in the Finnish Academy of Science and Letters

Summary

Policy red teaming through facilitated discussions where researchers review and comment on early policy drafts from the perspective of scientific evidence and expertise
Emphasizes multidisciplinarity, making it suitable in particular for complex systemic policy topics, where identifying interdependencies between policy issues is crucial
Prioritizes policy relevance by clearly defining the knowledge need and anchoring discussions to specific policy problems
Knowledge brokers enable the process by building trust between participants and making participation easy for both researchers and policymakers
Validated at the national level through co-development and testing with eight Finnish ministries, with successful pilots conducted at regional and municipal levels

Description of the format

Science Sparring strengthens the evidence base of policy development by bringing researchers and policymakers together at the critical early stage, when meaningful adjustments are still feasible. It is carefully designed by knowledge brokers, making participation for both policymakers and researchers easy and time-efficient.

The core methodology of Science Sparring centers on policy red teaming (see, e.g., Zhang & Gronwall, 2020). Essentially, this means that researchers review and comment on early policy draft documents put forward by policymakers. The process simulates an adversarial science–policy environment, but in a constructive setting designed to generate insights relevant for policy.

A key role in Science Sparring is played by preparatory documents, such as background papers, working group notes, draft texts and impact assessment materials. In the discussions, scientists review and comment on these boundary documents from the perspective of scientific evidence and expertise.

The strength of the approach lies in its ability to bring to the surface blind spots and assumptions that might otherwise go unexamined. By creating a controlled “stress test” for early drafts, Science Sparring can be utilized to reveal known unknowns and unknown knowns. Indeed, early interventions in the drafting process through the lens of scientific expertise can help in uncovering

missing perspectives that require further review and scrutiny
risks or side costs relating to the policy means
feasibility of policy goals and solutions
problematic framing of concepts or assumptions about causality
interdependencies requiring a broadened scope of consultations

The development of the method started after conversations with policymakers, during which it was recognized that new interactive models to support science–policy collaboration are needed. Since 2020, the model has been developed and tested through collaborative pilots with eleven organizations in Finland, eight of which are ministries. Developing the model in collaboration with ministries has helped validate the model and fine-tune its core elements.

While the model does not yet have formal legal standing, the Finnish Government Report on the Future (2019–2023) recommends wider adoption of Science Sparring in ministries’ policy preparation processes.

Most Science Sparring processes begin with a knowledge need identified by policymakers. While this policy-driven initiation is not mandatory, it helps ensure policymakers’ commitment to and engagement in the process. When researchers propose Science Sparring processes, knowledge brokers typically invest more effort and expertise in connecting these proposals to ongoing policy processes.

The different stages of Science Sparring

Defining the knowledge need: The process begins by defining the precise knowledge needs and factors influencing these needs (such as political conflicts). Knowledge brokers facilitate this process in close collaboration with the policymakers in ministries. Simultaneously, the goals of the Sparring session are clarified with the ministry (or another knowledge user), including the timeframe, final output, and boundary object. A partnership plan is written that documents the agreed knowledge needs, objectives, and logistical arrangements.
Participant mapping: Knowledge brokers identify an optimal multidisciplinary group of researchers (typically 4–10 participants). Researchers do not need to be affiliated with the Finnish Academy of Science and Letters; instead, knowledge brokers look for the best experts on the topic. Often, selected researchers are affiliated with a wide range of universities and research institutions. Best practice involves discussing which academic disciplines should be included with the knowledge user to ensure the Sparring session meets its objectives. Personal contact and briefing of both civil servants and researchers about the Sparring format is essential for successful dialogue.
Preparation: This includes formulating workshop questions, ideally in collaboration with experts on the subject in ministries. These questions should be given to the researchers in advance so that they also know what is expected of them.
Workshops: The workshops are designed to create an environment of trust between researchers and policymakers. Knowledge brokers design the format, facilitate discussions, and make sure everything runs smoothly. Generally, the format consists of short introductory presentations (including goals and ground rules for the day), followed by group discussions around the boundary object. Depending on the knowledge need, the Sparring session can consist of one or multiple workshops that usually last between three to six hours.
Final output: Those initiating the Science Sparring process typically require a clear final output that synthesizes different types of knowledge. The specific requirements of the final output must be carefully considered throughout the documentation process of workshop content. Unless otherwise specified, the final output is always published to increase the transparency of the process. As knowledge brokers are responsible for consolidating the final output, it is always validated with the researchers to ensure that it does not include any flawed interpretations of the conversations.

Challenges

Closed setting | Science Sparring requires an explorative space where there are also opportunities for tangents in the interaction. This becomes difficult when there are third parties (e.g., stakeholders and interest groups) present as conversations can shift quickly from constructive exploration to adversarial public performance. While the closed nature of these sessions is necessary for candid dialogue, it creates transparency obligations. These can be addressed by, for example, publishing both the outcomes and participant list, and encouraging knowledge brokers to openly document their role in the process.

Trust | The critical framing integrated in Science Sparring demands exceptionally high trust among participants. Policymakers in charge of the legislative drafting must be willing to open their early drafts and expose their early thinking, including potential flaws and knowledge gaps. Without mutual understanding that criticism serves as a tool for better policy, interactions can quickly turn destructive rather than constructive.

Resource intensiveness | The process and its planning, particularly in defining the knowledge need, can be quite substantial. Knowledge brokers should manage this planning and ensure that researchers’ time commitment is kept to a minimum to maximize their quality engagement and motivation to participate.

Optimal group size | Workshop size requires careful management. Groups exceeding 20 participants often suffer from cancellations and reduced engagement. A more compact group size facilitates higher-quality dialogue and more meaningful exchanges between participants.

Managing hierarchies and existing tensions | Existing hierarchies between participants can undermine the open exchange that Science Sparring requires. Knowledge brokers must actively identify these dynamics during planning and use structured dialogue techniques to manage these tensions.

Tasks and resources

Knowledge brokers: Knowledge brokers facilitate the process and enable open discussions. Their role as expert facilitators is essential from early need identification to facilitation as they clarify the knowledge need, identify suitable participants and brief them, prepare the workshop structure and preparatory materials, facilitate discussions, and coordinate the final output.
Policymakers: Policymakers’ motivation is crucial for success. Effective Science Sparring sessions are usually demand-driven, initiated by policymakers with existing knowledge needs. Policymakers should remain open and actively participate throughout the process as engagement level directly correlates with the value gained. Most importantly, policymakers, especially those responsible for the topic, should recognize themselves as experts bringing valuable knowledge to the discussion, not passive recipients of academic input. Depending on the Sparring and its design, policymakers can be policy officers, head of units, or even both.
Researchers: Researchers bring multidisciplinary expertise to the discussion and provide constructive, critical feedback to the policy document, which is then fine-tuned. During discussions, researchers are requested to articulate whether their contribution is based on peer-reviewed research or expert evaluation.

Examples of Science Sparring, conducted by the Finnish Academy of Science and Letters:

Knowledge base of physical activity, sports and elite sports (Ministry of Education and Culture), 2025
Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for Government R&D funding (Prime Minister’s Office), 2024
Systems mapping of demographic change (Prime Minister’s Office, DEMOGRAPHY program), 2024
Implementation of the Restoration Regulation (Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Science Panels), 2024
Ecological connectivity (Ministry of the Environment), 2023
Anticipation of the Biodiversity Act (Ministry of the Environment), 2023
National Climate Adaptation Plan (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry), 2022
Architectural Policy Program (Ministry of Education and Culture, Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment, and Ministry of the Environment), 2021
Roadmap to Fossil-Free Transportation (Ministry of Transport and Communications), 2021
Public Sector Strategy (Ministry of Finance and Association of Finnish Municipalities), 2020
Nature Conservation Act reform (Ministry of the Environment), 2020–2021
National Transportation Plan (Ministry of Transport and Communications), 2020
Climate Regulatory Impact Assessment (Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Justice), 2020

Implementation of the Restoration Regulation (Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Science Panels), 2024.
Picture: Aleksi Kylmälahti, Finnish Academy of Science and Letters.

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Engaging Members of the Bundestag: The Parliamentary Event “The Climate Impact of Methane – An Underestimated Threat”

Written by Katharina Sielemann. Posted in Content, Dialogue-Oriented Formats CS. No Comments on Engaging Members of the Bundestag: The Parliamentary Event “The Climate Impact of Methane – An Underestimated Threat”

Key points at a glance

Parliamentary events such as breakfasts or evening events allow scientists to engage directly with members of the German Bundestag (federal parliament) during session weeks, present policy options, and contribute to evidence-informed policymaking
Events held on the premises of the Bundestag require a a member of the Bundestag to serve as host – ideally the parliamentary group spokespersons for the respective topic; what matters most is not so much the number of participating members of the Bundestag but their expertise and political influence (e.g., rapporteurs and chairs of the relevant committees)
Short, clearly understandable presentations with concrete recommendations for action – supplemented by a take-home fact sheet – are particularly well received by members of the Bundestag
A coalition of several scientific organizations (e.g., Helmholtz SynCom and Leopoldina) increases visibility and impact; the dialogue can be continued after the event in bilateral follow-up meetings
For parliamentary events to be effective, they must be part of a broader dialogue process

How does the format work?

During the German Bundestag’s session weeks, numerous parliamentary events take place: for example, at the German Parliamentary Society, in the Jakob-Kaiser-Haus cafeteria, or in the restaurants in and around the Reichstag building. Since many interest groups organize events simultaneously, scientific organizations and interest groups compete for parliamentary members’ attention. Having a member of the Bundestag with thematic expertise as a patron ensures access and relevance. For parliamentary events to have an impact, they must be part of a broader dialogue process.

Example: Parliamentary breakfast “The climate impact of methane – An underestimated threat”

On October 17, 2024, Helmholtz SynCom and Leopoldina hosted a parliamentary breakfast at the German Parliamentary Society. The topic was chosen because of its political relevance and at the suggestion of politicians. Under the patronage of Dr. Konstantin von Notz, and Lisa Badum, bothmembers of the Bundestag, 34 scientists and policymakers gathered (the venue’s maximum capacity). Politicians from the relevant committees were invited.

The agenda for the 1.5-hour session: Following the opening remarks by the patron and welcoming addresses by the vice presidents of both scientific organizations (10 minutes), three 8-minute scientific keynote presentations were given: on methane concentrations in the atmosphere, the energy sector, and agriculture as the largest source of methane emissions in Germany. In the subsequent 40-minute discussion with the members of pthe Bundestag, topics such as the transformation of agriculture, upstream emissions from imported LNG, regulatory options, and future challenges like leaks from hydrogen networks were explored in depth. A fact sheet containing the scientific community’s recommendations for action was distributed to the Bundestag members present.

In the evaluation, participants particularly praised the “clearly organized facts” as well as the “short, clear, and understandable” presentations with “concrete possible solutions.” Following the event, the dialogue continued in further exchange meetings between researchers and policymakers or ministry representatives.

Tasks and resources

Scientists

Scientists prepare short, accessible keynote presentations with concrete recommendations for action and contribute to the creation of a fact sheet. The time required for content preparation and delivery is approximately three days; organizational tasks take about one hour. Follow-up bilateral meetings with lawmakers or ministries may result afterward.

Transfer and communication staff (support staff)

Staff in the areas of transfer and communication are responsible for the bulk of the organizational work (approximately 1.5 weeks): They secure sponsors, book the venue, identify, and invite relevant members of the Bundestag, coordinate the program, contribute to the creation of the fact sheet, and conduct the evaluation.

Policymakers

Ideally, members of the Bundestag serve as patrons, including delivering the opening remarks or a welcome address. The time commitment ranges from two to eight hours, depending on whether they serve as a host with a reception address and whether follow-up meetings take place.

References

Leopoldina and SynCom, Helmholtz Earth & Environment (2024), The Climate Impact of Methane – An Underestimated Threat. Fact Sheet. pp. 1–4, https://doi.org/10.48440/leopoldina_syncom.2024.001.

Heidenreich, Marie; Brunner, Almut; Meyn, Andrea; Sielemann, Katharina (2024), Navigating uncertainties: collaborative approaches to science-policy dialogues, Frontiers in Earth Science, https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2025.1602005.

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Format: Talks – Let’s talk about social business

Written by Giulio Minto. Posted in Content, Dialogue-Oriented Formats CS. No Comments on Format: Talks – Let’s talk about social business

About the idea

The Erasmus+ project EngageGreen (Enhancing Institutional Capacities for Policy Engagement for Green and Digital Transitions) also aims to translate the green and digital transition in a public and shared process. The objective is twofold: firstly, to reduce the distance between the conventional university pathway and businesses with a global change agenda; and secondly, to create opportunities for interaction between students and policymakers or NGO personnel. This interaction can offer students the chance to understand that economic growth can be achieved in a fair, sustainable and responsible way. Similarly, NGOs can benefit from interactions with young people who are strongly motivated to effect an economic transition. The university can act as the ideal facilitator for interactions between social actors with different perspectives, within the framework of the learning process.

Summary: Key features in a nutshell

Originated from academic team’s observation: a lack of offering in the academic programs about social business theories but the willing to know more about the topics by the students.
Resulted in 4 open lessons named “Social Business Talks” hosted by academic course with some connections with social business held by professionals of the private sector, policymakers and academics.
Since the importance of the topics, the open lessons were open also to public sector workers, third sector workers and civil society (for example, NGO’s).
Mobilized academia, policymakers, private sector to spread knowledge among students and civil society.
Included final debate and networking thanks to the availability of the speakers to informal chatting after the lecture.
Ultimately, it allows for a new perspective and a broader understanding of the policy-making and implementation process.

Starting point

The impetus for establishing a series of open lessons that would facilitate the comprehension of social business theories emerged from the observations by the Yunus Social Business Centre – Ca’ Foscari University’s team. The academic programme offered by the Department of Economics and the Venice School of Management, in particular, is characterized by a small number of courses relating to social dimension of business. The intention was therefore to bring those experiences together in a coordinated manner, drawing on the specific expertise of each lecturer involved. The Centre is, in fact, divided into several research units, and we have endeavour to organize at least one open lecture per research unit. Social business talks’ case study points out how it is possible to engage students when it comes to topics that are not so focused in the academics course although their attention is considered crucial. This initiative was launched by Yunus Social Business Centre – Ca’ Foscari University with the support by the Department of Economics at Ca’ Foscari University Venice, the Venice School of Management and Department of Philosophy and Cultural Heritage at Ca’ Foscari University Venice under the Erasmus+ ENGAGEgreen project.

How does the format work?

Before the lecture:

identify lecturers who teach master’s degree courses with potential links to the key issues of social business
identify the topic to be linked to the key issues of social business (in our case: social innovation, healthcare, social impact, international cooperation)
identify external speakers to contribute to the lectures and checking their availability
draw up the schedule
prepare the promotional flyer and distributing it
collect the applications

During the lecture:

set up the room
collect feedback from speakers and participants
take a photo of classes

After the lecture:

send a thank-you note
post on LinkedIn with a photo and the key points that emerged

Who should be involved as participants?

Master degree’s students, bachelor degree’s students, doctoral students, researchers, professors, public sector organizations and third sector associations.

Challenges

Involve students that may be interested in the topics.
Involve public sector workers, third sector workers and civil society during working hours.
Make public sector organizations, third sector associations and civil society aware that the lessons are open to everyone and that anyone can attend (there is a tendency for university lectures to be perceived from the outside as being intended solely for students).
Ensure that current and relevant topics are included.

Task and resources

Academics

The programme is very time-efficient for academics. Since the open lessons are held as part of lectures that have already been organized, the major effort concerns involvement of the speakers.

Support staff (Researchers, Knowledge exchange managers and research managers)

The Departments used:

one researcher who were already on staff to handle the organizational management of the initiative;
one research manager who handled the promotion of the initiative.

Students/policymakers/researchers/workers from public bodies and Third sector

Participants must submit an application form, which takes one minute to complete.

Required funding

Travelling cost for speakers.

Links

LinkedIn posts

Yunus Social Business Centre – Ca’ Foscari University

https://www.unive.it/pag/46277

Photos

2 December 2025 | Social Innovation as a driver of social business

12 December 2025 | Innovation and digital transformation at Save the Children: organisational challenges and opportunities

15 December 2025 | POP Report – Popular Financial Reporting

18 May 2026 | (F)or (I)mpact o(R) (M)oney? What positive role can FIRMs play in international cooperation for development?

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

A Case of a Dysfunctional Project Between Historians and Elected Officials of a Peri-urban Commune

Written by Étienne Faugier. Posted in Content, Dialogue-Oriented Formats CS. No Comments on A Case of a Dysfunctional Project Between Historians and Elected Officials of a Peri-urban Commune

Doing History Is Not Telling the Story You Want

We wanted to interview teacher-researchers who have experience collaborating with elected officials or local authorities in order to report on these experiences and the challenges these encounters raise, including through their dysfunctions. To this end, we met with historian Etienne Faugier, who shared with us his work with elected officials who wanted to tell the history of their commune.

In what context did you work with political representatives? How did the meeting come about, and what do you think they expected from you?

One of my recent experiences working with elected officials was with a peri-urban commune east of Lyon, a request that had been passed on by a Master’s student of one of my fellow historians. The mayor wanted research to be conducted and a book to be produced on the history of his commune. There were four researchers to cover the four major periods to be traced (ancient, medieval, modern, and contemporary). I was assigned to the final, more contemporary part – the one that caused the most problems. The request was, in fact, to have “a beautiful book to offer new residents or newlyweds.”

What obstacles/challenges/limits did you encounter in this cooperation with elected officials/politicians?

The team of four researchers met about ten times with the mayor and the DGS (Director General of Services) of the commune to work on this project. We signed an agreement that went through the publisher chosen by the mayor. It was the commune that paid the publisher – through a cultural funding stream— who in turn paid us individually for the work carried out (mainly travel expenses, the salary of an intern, and a professional photographer). What was agreed upon was that our colleague would give a final lecture to present the book to the residents; a documentary was also filmed.

There were very few comments regarding the first three parts, but my contemporary section was modified dozens of times. Certain passages had to be removed – on urban brownfields, for example – or figures altered when INSEE (National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies) data differed from the commune’s field data. Relations were tense because there were also short deadlines to meet – clashing with the long timeframe of historical research – and all editorial choices rested with the funding town hall. The result is a book that is weakened from an academic standpoint and difficult to showcase within the scientific community (even if that was not necessarily the municipality’s objective), despite the genuine archival and writing work.

For me, there was, on one hand, a lack of understanding of how historians work, and conversely, of how politicians work. The solution could have been to write the first three parts, which were less controversial, “as historians,” and let the cabinet write the last one. There was a problem with defining the project, defining what a book is and what a historian’s work is, as opposed to a journalist’s, for example – which is just as legitimate, but different. In the end, there was no closing lecture on site, but today we are nevertheless starting to showcase this work during scientific mediation events, such as Pint of Science in May 2026.

How would you evaluate this collaboration? Would you do it again?

The positive side was that we had very easy access to the archives, notably through the municipal archivist who was very invested in the project, and we were able to conduct genuine historical research. The result is a beautiful book, but not one that qualifies as scientific, and which we cannot, for instance, credit to our scientific careers.

Nonetheless, it was an opportunity to meet people who daily deal with issues I work on myself (urban planning, mobility, tourism, etc.), and if I had to do it over, yes, I would do it again. It would actually be very important and interesting for other communes to request such monographic work! But I would ask that the expectations be clearly laid out beforehand: Are there controversial topics to avoid? What kind of object do we want at the end: a piece of journalism, political communication, or a rigorous scientific work? We researchers also need to be clearer about what we are capable of and agree to deliver or not, keeping in mind that there is, of course, a dimension of knowledge mediation that we must also pursue.

What recommendations or measures could be put in place to improve this relationship?

In another project, for example, I was able to work with the Ministry of the Environment, which has a History Committee that acts as an intermediary and a translator, in a way, of the elected officials’ requests for the researchers. When there is no intermediary, it is sometimes difficult to work well together, whereas, when there is one, it is truly an opportunity for us to meet key stakeholders of the subjects we are interested in, to make our work known to them, and to assert our expertise.

We need to know how to build bridges, create emulation and networks – between scientific and political events, for example – to force these two worlds, which do not always communicate well, to cross paths so that elected officials can identify the right resource people and vice versa. Particularly for our discipline, we need to show that knowledge of history is relevant for steering the present, that there is a relevance for the long term in understanding the present.

There is a reluctance among colleagues to step out of “pure science,” which is made clear to us in the sense that these projects do not advance careers, and there is a real fear of speaking out on topics slightly outside our areas of expertise. I experienced this after an op-ed in the press, for example, where I received threats or at least faced a certain pressure from my peers – a judgment on actually daring, as a historian, to cross boundaries between subjects and periods.

Furthermore, throughout my career, I have been called upon for citizens’ conventions on mobility, for example. There, I brought real expertise within a clearer and healthier framework, with the freedom to express myself on subjects that are nevertheless also very sensitive: the place of the car in the city, low emission zones (ZFE), automobile taxation, public transport, etc. I have also been able to help make political choices clearer and have even been mobilized to help develop political programs during simple discussions requested by candidates. I found them quite willing to listen, and I indicated that I might be interested in a follow-up, but this raises a question for me: When should I speak out as an expert, and when am I simply a citizen?

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Format: Conference – Cross-Project Collaboration

Written by Giulia Ballarin. Posted in Content, Dialogue-Oriented Formats CS. No Comments on Format: Conference – Cross-Project Collaboration

Summary

To ensure scientific evidence translates into impactful policy, a direct exchange between researchers and policymakers is crucial. This event aimed to bridge the gap between the science world and policymaking actors at both local and national levels. It served as a key platform for scientists to effectively disseminate project results and suggestions, and for policymakers to voice their practical needs, concerns, and priorities, ensuring the science remains relevant and actionable.

Jointly organized by Erasmus+ ENGAGEgreen and the Horizon Europe project PLANET4HEALTH, and hosted by Pompeu Fabra University in Barcelona (PLANET4HEALTH project partner), the topics covered a broad and crucial spectrum, focusing on urban, environmental and health policies.

The event promoted and enabled cross-project collaboration and engaged diverse stakeholder groups such as local authorities, national ministries, business sector and civil society, establishing the foundation to maximize the impact of EU-funded research and ensure the long-term sustainability of the developed tools and recommendations.

How does the format work

Before the event

The ENGAGEgreen unit within the Department of Economics of Ca’ Foscari University, which also manages PLANET4HEALTH, convenes preliminary meetings with both consortia to establish a central theme. Together with partners and advisory board members, they curate a list of subject-matter experts aligned with the chosen topic.

Once availability is confirmed, the coordinating team finalizes the program and session lineup of speakers. Regular online meetings with the host university are maintained to ensure alignment and prevent logistical oversights.

Invited contributors receive comprehensive briefings regarding the venue, schedule, and reimbursement procedures. They are also provided with a final panel list and speaker biographies to familiarize with each other. Reminders are sent to both in-person and remote presenters.

During the training

Organizers manage the welcome and registration of attendees. The team facilitates remote connections for virtual speakers and coordinates with catering staff to ensure refreshments align with scheduled breaks.

After the training

The organizers send a message of thanks to speakers and participants, inviting them to follow the project’s updates on social media, and asking to complete a feedback survey to evaluate the session’s impact and organization.

Participants

22 researchers

3 policymakers

1 NGO/civil society

7 project/research managers

Challenges (and the way to address them)

Finalize the speakers’ lineup and consequently the program well in advance to have enough time for promotion before registration deadline. Mitigation measures: regular meetings between core organizational teams (e.g. main organizer and host).
Speakers unavailable in-person at the last minute. Mitigation measures: set up an online meeting link in advance and select a room with the proper equipment in the event of a hybrid session. Send an email reminder the day and 1 hour prior to the event to make sure the remote speakers are connected on time.

Tasks and ressources

Main organizer’s team

Content of the event: coordinates agenda, contacts partners to inquire about the most suitable speakers and finalizes the lineup for each session.
Logistical aspects: sets up the pre-registration & communication, meeting room and catering services.

Hosting institution

The hosting institution is involved in all preliminary phases, but above all in all logistics aspects in loco such as contact with catering services, printing of essential material and booking of the room. Possible support in identifying nearby accommodations for speakers.

Speakers

Panellists meet separately with the organizers for a briefing on the topics, the background of the other speakers and the session format (e.g., individual presentations, roundtable discussions, or Q&A). Receive timely updates on timing, logistics, and presentation requirements.