Format: Innovation Lab

Written by Michele Marzulli. Posted in Content, Dialogue-Oriented Formats CS. No Comments on Format: Innovation Lab

SUMMARY

How can we improve innovation processes? And how can we develop new ideas to solve the problems of a complex society? To answer these questions, Ca’ Foscari University Venice decided to start with its own staff and researchers, putting them in touch with external partners who are tackling new challenges and problems. This gave rise to the idea of CLabs – Ca’ Foscari Laboratories for Active Learning, an initiative launched in 2018 that continues to run successfully today. The CLabs take place at both the university’s Venice and Treviso campuses. The CLab is structured as 6–8-week workshops aimed at supporting undergraduates and PhD students from diverse academic backgrounds in developing original projects addressing real-world challenges and problems, by harnessing their creativity and using methodologies such as Design Thinking and the Business Model Canvas.

Among these, the Venice Youth ACTION project has generated great interest; it was conceived and promoted by the Fondazione di Venezia, in collaboration with Ca’ Foscari University of Venice and the Fondazione Università Ca’ Foscari and Youth Bank International. The aim is to generate value within the Metropolitan City of Venice by engaging the younger population through a training program that empowers them to participate actively in all decision-making and governance processes. The main objective of the Laboratory is to accelerate the projects selected through a “Call for Ideas” aimed at groups of students who, in collaboration with local non-profit organizations, submit a project and/or initiative with a social impact that aligns with one of the key themes considered fundamental for strengthening local communities and envisioning sustainable and inclusive development.

HOW DOES THE FORMAT WORK?

Before the event

Two central university bodies (one for Venice, one for Treviso) coordinate the initiative. CLab Ca’ Foscari Venice (led by Prof. Sara Bonesso), together with its institutional partner, discusses with external partners (public authorities, local businesses and NGOs) a challenge on which to engage the students. The discussion takes the form of co-design process. The proposal of a topic is open to any university lecturer or external partner. Ideas may have their own budget (for example, established in collaboration with an external partner) or may require funding from the University. A Technical and Scientific Committee evaluates and selects all the proposals.

CLab therefore publishes a call for applications on the University’s website, aimed at the student community, and collects expressions of interest from those wishing to take part. The call is also publicized across the University’s three campuses.

Proposals are generally submitted by 15 October each year, and the workshops take place the following spring.

During the laboratory

The workshop lasts between 6 and 8 weeks (though they may be shorter), requiring a commitment of two or three days a week.

A typical 6-week workshop can be divided into 6 phases: launch, research, definition, ideation, validation, and finalisation (final presentation).

Each workshop involves the presence of tutors/facilitators who support and guide participants through the training programme, stimulating their interest and motivation.

The coordinating lecturer has scientific and educational responsibility for the CLab entrusted to them and actively collaborates with the team of experts.

After the laboratory

At the end of the workshop, the results are presented publicly by the students themselves, together with the project partners.

The findings are disseminated both through in-person public events and via social media, specifically Instagram and Facebook, in collaboration with the university’s communications Department.

At the end of the course, participating students are awarded open badges (certificates attesting to the knowledge, skills and abilities acquired).

The CLAB management team conducts an evaluation during the summer and then begins gathering new ideas and proposals for the next cycle, which starts in the autumn.

PARTICIPANTS

Over the years, the Venetian CLab has seen the participation of 1,378 people, developed 203 projects, involved 171 partners from outside the university, and awarded students 946 open badges.

CHALLENGES (AND WAY TO ADDRESS THEM)

It is possible that the call is not widely known and that, as a result, few ideas are submitted. For this reason, the call is publicized not only on the University website but also by the Departments and various interested lecturers. The external partners are also involved in publicizing the call.
The workshop lasts approximately six weeks. It is not always possible for all students to attend, so it is important not only to encourage participants to attend regularly, but also to ensure that the working group can continue to operate under any circumstances. This is facilitated by a modular structure and the presence of tutor facilitators.

TASKS AND RESOURCES

Main organizer’s team

Event content: coordinating the agenda, liaising with partners regarding the most suitable challenges, and finalising the line-up for each call.
Organizational aspects: drafting the call for proposals; selecting proposals; disseminating information; and organising the logistics of the venues provided for the workshop and the final presentation.

Hosting institution

The hosting institution (CLab Ca’ Foscari, as the promoter) is involved in all preliminary phases, from the call for proposals to all logistics aspects in loco.

Researchers/mentors

Lecturers who put forward ideas are involved in the initial proposal stage and, if the idea is accepted, they lead the workshop themselves. The University recognies the lecturers’ involvement as teaching hours.

Students

Students are recruited through a call for applications and then work on devising and testing solutions to tackle the challenge set by the workshop.

Partners

Partners contribute by setting challenges for the students during the preliminary phase, sharing the workshop’s findings at the end, and disseminating the results through their own communication channels.

REQUIRED FUNDING FOR ACTIVITIES

Funds may be made available to the institutions promoting the challenge, including by the University itself.

SOURCES AND FURTHER READING

CLab Ca’ Foscari https://www.unive.it/pag/30571/

Call for ideas: https://forms.gle/quJR3viwoWrGp93c6

Call for Ideas Venice Youth ACTION https://www.unive.it/pag/44584/

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

Interview Marie Preau

Written by Science Policy. Posted in Content, Dialogue-Oriented Formats CS. No Comments on Interview Marie Preau

Marie Preau is Professor of Social Psychology and Director of the Reshape laboratory, Marie Préau has been serving as a project manager for scientific strategy in the field of health since September 2022.

1. In what framework/project have you worked with elected officials / political representatives?

In public health, we inevitably have links with politicians.

Several experiences. My first experience with politicians was as a researcher within the National AIDS Council (CNS), which is a national body whose members are appointed by the Prime Minister or even the President. This body brings together experts, researchers as well as individuals from civil society, representatives of societies of thought, such as religious faiths or Freemasonry. It was interesting because the CNS either took up topics on its own initiative to work on referrals, or was referred to by the Ministry of Health on matters such as the management of HIV among migrants, medicalized prevention, etc. There were also political sociologists like Alain Touraine; it was interesting to have their perspective, combined with those of citizens, experts, associations, and family representatives.

It wasn’t the elected officials who directly introduced the topics; we collectively chose a referral on a subject. We didn’t base our work directly on them, but they contributed by asking their questions. But the nature of the questions is inherently political, such as the medicalized prevention of HIV: Is it acceptable to give a drug to people to protect themselves, like a contraceptive pill? What message should be conveyed to citizens? It is complicated to say that people continue to take sexual risks but that we can give them a treatment that will protect them from it.

Another related question: can this treatment be reimbursed by social security? Afterward, we worked extensively on the issue of the management of migrants because there was a discourse from certain politicians saying that migrant populations were arriving in France to get treated for HIV, etc.

Ethics were involved, and there was also a sensitive side to it.

We had a referral regarding the organization of HIV prevention management in French Guiana. For that, we went there on a 10-day visit to see everything. So, there were really major things at stake. So, that’s an experience that impacts you in how you do research. Personally, I have always held that the researcher is there to provide scientific data to help others, like elected officials, build their advocacy.

So I feel very comfortable with that; our job is to provide data and publication. Publication is a condition for our credibility.

Regarding my experience as scientific co-coordinator or director of the SHAPE-Med@Lyon project – winner in 2022 of the France 2030 “ExcellencES” call for projects, which draws on all the scientific strengths of the Lyon-Saint Etienne site to develop transforming research and training projects in the field of health and well-being – the question of the connection with elected officials was embedded in the project right from the start. This corresponded to the time of the implementation of the local health contract (CLS) where they set up the Scientific Committee. So, I am a member of the Scientific Committee of the CLS. We work very closely with elected officials there. We did a 5-day mission to Barcelona with the DGS (Director General of Services), in the presence of the Director General of Health for the city of Lyon. And it was interesting because we actually went to visit the Barcelona City Hall, which has One Health actions, so they wanted to see how it was organized. And there is a global health institute in Barcelona that was something of a model we were interested in to understand exactly how it worked. We realized that it was not applicable in France given the organization because, among other things, they have private funders like the Spanish bank La Caixa, which would not be possible in France. But it was definitely an interesting experience to see the questions they asked and the questions we asked.

I think we are going to achieve co-constructed projects – genuinely with city stakeholders; I think this is one of the first times to my knowledge.

2. What do you think the conditions for a constructive dialogue between researchers and elected officials are?

In this last experience, there was a firm commitment from both sides: from the researchers’ side and from the city’s side, which wanted to involve academics in the operation of these local contracts to bring credibility to all actions, to validate them scientifically.

In SHAPE-Med, we had declared that we wanted to work with local institutions and that we wanted this partnership. We persisted: we had the elected officials and directors come to the SHAPE workshops. And we didn’t give up, even if we were discouraged at times. But progress was made. Now we do joint presentations, researchers and elected officials, as in the Jacques Cartier interviews.

We also organize workshops together, walking lectures/conferences, and conferences in the city park of Lyon.

So, I think the contract, the actions of the local health contract, are truly built on scientific data with researchers, and the topics we develop also stem from field realities. There is one, for instance, on bedbugs. We started from field experience and went looking for expertise in biology, economics, etc. I think we will eventually secure funding for this project.

It works both ways; it’s give and take: it fuels the credibility of the CLS actions, and, conversely, we build projects based on the reality of what is actually happening.

3. Have you had experiences where this collaboration did not work?

The problem is often a matter of time; we don’t know how long this body will last following regular new elections. Sometimes, we wonder how far we should go. The Scientific Committee of the CLS—how long will it exist? Do weknow at what point we are to stop or not, and how?

4. If you had to recommend to colleagues for them to get involved in this type of initiative, what would you tell them? What advice would you give them?

I think you have to ensure that you are not going to work for the politicians but defending a common cause.

Why did it work? Because the common scientific objective is One Health, and, in fact, the elected official was waiting for our results and trusted us. But we weren’t there to defend the policy of the city of Lyon. It’s just that we truly had this common goal and, as a result, mutual recognition of expertise from both sides. I think that is, for me, the key to our collaboration.

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

Interview with Dr. Fabienne Pradella on policy sessions at the annual conferences of the German

Written by Tome Sandevski. Posted in Content, Dialogue-Oriented Formats CS. No Comments on Interview with Dr. Fabienne Pradella on policy sessions at the annual conferences of the German

Society for Epidemiology

Dr. Fabienne Pradella is a researcher at the University of Bremen. She was a postdoctoral researcher at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz and the Heidelberg Institute for Global Health. Her research lies at the intersection of epidemiology and economics and focuses on the prerequisites for a healthy life for all from pregnancy to old age. Her current projects focus on the effects of environmental influences during pregnancy on offspring health and on the prevention of neurodegenerative diseases in later life.

Dr Pradella, at which events have you organized policy sessions?

We held our sessions on the UN Sustainable Development Goals at the annual conferences of the German Society for Epidemiology, which take place every year with approximately 250–300 participants. The annual conferences are held in a different city each year, and we invited two to three local decision makers to discuss a specific topic with us.

How did the idea of inviting decision-makers to a scientific event come about? What topics did your session cover?

The idea arose in discussions with colleagues at previous annual conferences. A healthy life for all people of all ages is one of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Science and research, as also on the local level, are also considered highly important for achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals – so we found it exciting to bring Germany’s epidemiological community into contact with local decision makers at the annual conferences. Our idea was to combine scientific and practical perspectives. To this end, we selected topics that are highly relevant to research and practice, such as children’s health and access to healthy food.

Which policymakers did you invite? Did you already have contact with them beforehand

We contacted people with connections to the topic of our session at various levels. For example, the deputy mayor of Ulm was a guest, as were people involved in local initiatives, such as an employee of an association that promotes healthy daycare and school meals in the Greifswald region. We had not had any previous contact with these individuals, and over time, it became clear that contacting them by phone was the best way to explain our concerns. We also met with some of them for lunch in the run-up to the conference.

How did you structure your policy session?

The sessions usually began with keynote speeches lasting no more than 10 minutes, covering scientific and practical perspectives. Since the exchange between science and practice is a priority for us, we experimented with various interactive formats, such as thesis discussions and scientific “speed dating.” As organizers , we primarily moderated and facilitated transitions between core questions. It was also important to us to document the sessions. Our core organizing team consisted of three people, one of whom usually summarized the discussion on flipchart paper during the session so that all participants could see it.

Science and practice have different ways of thinking. Also, science and practice often use technical terms that aren’t known in the other “world.” How did communication between researchers and decision makers work in your sessions? Was it always clear to participants what was meant?

We certainly learned a lot in this regard. It helped to make the topic of the sessions as concrete as possible. To cover the thematic expertise from a scientific perspective as well, we involved the working groups of the professional association—after all, we also organized sessions on topics that we ourselves do not research. This gave rise to exciting ideas that also facilitated communication. For example, we worked with the Health Geography working group to develop a street map in Greifswald to discuss access to healthy and sustainable nutrition using a concrete example.

Did the exchange with decision makers give you any ideas for your own research?

Yes, definitely. As I mentioned earlier, I learned a lot about how to present my research in a way tailored to the target audience. Discussing knowledge gaps and practice-relevant topics in our sessions also gave rise to research ideas – though not necessarily for my own research, as I have no expertise in daycare or school catering, for example. Instead, I learned a lot of new things and gained insights into other fields of research. In terms of motivation, the sessions also made me even more aware of the relevance of my research.

Was planning and conducting the policy sessions more time-consuming than conducting a regular scientific session?

I would say the organization was at least different, with much more communication and coordination in advance. Finding relevant decision makers was not always easy, and it sometimes took a while to reach the right person. Personally, however, I found this a welcome change, especially during my doctoral studies. A big advantage was that we didn’t need any financial resources, since the sessions took place as part of a larger event and there were no travel costs, thanks to the involvement of local decision makers.

What tips would you give to researchers who are considering organizing policy sessions as part of scientific conferences?

For our sessions, it was important that we formed an organizational team made up of people at different stages of their careers, with different skills and backgrounds. We also discussed our plans in advance with the professional association’s board. The dynamics and interests of participants at scientific conferences certainly vary by discipline. At the time, we decided to simply try out our idea—with the attitude that we would also learn something even if no one came. Ultimately, it turned out that there was interest, in our case, especially among young researchers.

Tome Sandevski conducted this interview.

Right Time, Right Format, Right Target Group: Designing Policy Events that Work for Policymakers

Written by Tome Sandevski. Posted in Content, Dialogue-Oriented Formats OV. No Comments on Right Time, Right Format, Right Target Group: Designing Policy Events that Work for Policymakers

Key features in a nutshell

There’s no single ‘right’ length or format for a policy event. The right choice depends on your goal, your resources, your target group, and how well policymakers already know you
Senior decision makers and junior policy staff behave very differently as event guests; plan accordingly
Time of day matters as much as duration: breakfast, lunch, and evening events each come with different trade-offs for policymakers’ schedules
Beyond the clock, check the parliamentary calendar too; sitting weeks and recesses can make or break attendance
Virtual and in-person formats aren’t just a logistics choice; they change what kind of event actually works

How does the format work?

From informal one-hour meetings in small groups to large, multi-day conferences and policy events can take many shapes and formats. When planning policy events, researchers and research managers often ask fundamental questions:

Target audience: Whom should we invite – junior or mid-level policy professionals, or senior decision makers?
Duration & balance: How long should an event be? How do we balance the need to convey academic expertise thoroughly with the necessity of allowing time for networking while respecting the tight schedules of policymakers?
Format selection: Which event format works best for which target group?
Delivery mode: Should we organise virtual, hybrid, or in-person events?

To identify the right event structure, start by answering four guiding questions:

Objectives: What do you want to achieve? (e.g., direct policy change, raising visibility, building trust, expanding networks, mutual learning, gaining research insights, or informing policymakers)?
Resources: What time, budget, and administrative support are available?
Familiarity: Do policymakers already know you, your institution, or your research project?
Format Expertise: Are you familiar with interactive formats (e.g., World Cafés, breakout sessions, panel discussions)? Can you organise them on your own or do you need support (e.g., moderators)?

Who do you invite? Understanding policy target groups

Different groups within policymaking institutions have distinct motivations, knowledge levels, and availability. Effective event design requires tailoring the depth of discussion to the right audience:

Members of Parliament, heads of institutions & senior policymakers

Working reality: Extremely packed schedules and high political visibility; they frequently have to leave events immediately after delivering their opening remarks
Motivations for attending: Access to high-level evidence, strategic networking, and public/social media visibility (e.g., demonstrating active engagement on a panel with scientists and industry and NGO leaders)
Typical roles: Delivering welcome addresses or keynotes, serving as high-profile panellists
Level of knowledge & scope: Broad thematic overview; they are the right contacts for discussing fundamental policy questions:
- How can we accelerate the market adoption of energy-efficient technologies?
- Should smartphones be banned in primary schools?
- Should hard drugs be legalised?

Staffers, parliamentary advisers, junior & mid-level policy professionals

Working reality: Demanding schedules, but far more likely to attend multi-hour workshops or roundtables than senior politicians
Motivations for attending: Gathering solid technical evidence, acquiring background information to brief their superiors, and building subject-matter networks
Typical roles: Panellists, presenters, active participants in breakout sessions, World Cafés, or technical workshops
Level of knowledge & scope: Specialist or deep technical expertise (civil servants) or strong generalist knowledge (parliamentary staffers); they are the right contacts for discussing technical and regulatory implementation details:
- Which technical purity standards must existing pipelines meet to transport hydrogen safely?
- How can water toxicity thresholds be standardised across municipal monitoring systems?

Delivery ode: Virtual, in-person, or hybrid?

Selecting the right delivery mode directly impacts attendance and engagement depth:

Virtual events (45–120 minutes): Ideal for rapid briefings or busy policy professionals spread across different regions; they significantly lower the threshold for attendance and incur no costs for venue rental or catering but only offer limited opportunities for informal networking; virtual events lasting longer than two to three hours should generally be avoided because digital screen fatigue sets in quickly and participant engagement drops sharply
In-person events: Essential for building personal trust, exchanging implicit policy knowledge, and long-term networking; but they require higher costs and a greater time commitment from participants
Hybrid events: Offer broad reach but require substantial technical support and active moderation to prevent virtual attendees from feeling like passive observers

Matching event duration with objectives

Short events (60–90 Minutes)

Focus: Presenting concise new evidence, exchanging initial viewpoints, or pitching key findings
Typical formats: Short presentations, roundtables, or panel discussions followed by Q&A
Networking: Very limited informal networking during the session itself
Active roles: 1–5 active speakers/presenters
Catering costs: Minimal (coffee, water, light refreshments)
Organisational effort (FTE): Hours to days

Medium-length events (2–5 Hours)

Focus: Deepening thematic exchange and fostering connections between researchers and policymakers
Typical formats: A sequence of short presentations, thematic roundtables, interactive workshops, or panel discussions
Networking: Good opportunities during coffee breaks, joint lunches, or evening receptions, or small-group breakout sessions.
Active roles: 4–10 active speakers/presenters.
Catering costs: Moderate to high (coffee breaks and light meals, e.g., finger food or buffet lunch).
Organisational effort (FTE): Days to weeks

Full-day events (5+ Hours)

Focus: Comprehensive thematic exploration and establishing long-term networks
Typical formats: Several speeches and presentations, parallel breakout sessions, interactive World Cafés, or panel discussions
Networking: Excellent networking during structured breaks, communal meals, and evening receptions
Active roles: 10+ active speakers/presenters.
Catering costs: High (full catering including morning/afternoon coffee, lunch, and potentially a reception)
Organisational effort (FTE): Weeks to months

For what time of day should you organise the event?

Timing & duration: Depending on the country, breakfast events typically start between 7:00 and 9:00 and run for 60–90 minutes
Format & catering: Attendees enjoy a light breakfast while listening to concise presentations; high-quality moderation and strict timekeeping are essential
Pros & Cons:
Advantage: Particularly popular with Members of Parliament (MPs) whose core legislative schedule often begins later in the morning; high attendance rates because political emergencies rarely erupt early in the morning; participants start their working day with fresh insights
Disadvantage: Limited time for informal networking

Lunch events

Timing & duration: Depending on the country, they start between 11:00 and 13:00 and run for 90–120 minutes
Format & catering: Combines short inputs with structured discussion over a light lunch or standing buffet
Pros & cons:
- Advantage: Provides a productive break in the workday with sufficient time for Q&A and networking;
- Disadvantage: Interrupts the daily workflow; unforeseen political priorities or urgent meetings during the morning can lead to last-minute cancellations

Evening events

Timing & duration: Depending on the country, they start between 17:30 and 20:00 and run for 2–4 hours
Format & catering: Keynotes, presentations or panel discussions followed by an extended networking reception with food and drinks
Pros & cons:
- Advantage: Offers the best atmosphere for building personal trust and long-term relationships
- Disadvantage: Competing demands that piled up earlier in the day, simple tiredness, or family obligations can all keep policymakers from attending

Tasks and resources

Researchers

Clarify what they want to achieve with the event and communicate this early to the organising team
Prepare content appropriate to the chosen format, duration, and target group (e.g., a tight elevator-pitch style talk for a breakfast event with senior policymakers vs a fuller technical presentation for a full-day workshop with policy officers)
Be available for informal networking during breaks wherever the format allows for it

Research managers and knowledge mobilisers

Help match the event’s goal, target audience, and available resources to the right format and duration, using the framework above
Handle logistics: venue, catering, invitations, and – especially for short events – a realistic buffer for no-shows or late arrivals
Check the parliamentary calendar (sitting weeks, recesses, election periods) before fixing a date

Policymakers

Decide whether to attend and in what capacity (e.g., keynote speaker, panellist, or audience member)
Where their own schedule doesn’t allow attendance, suggest a staffer or colleague who could attend instead
Share relevant current priorities or policy questions in advance so that the event can be tailored to what’s actually useful to them
Indicate format preferences when invited – for example, whether a breakfast slot or a longer in-person session fits better into their schedule
Flag known scheduling conflicts early (e.g., sitting weeks, election periods, other competing commitments) to help organisers pick a workable date
Give brief feedback afterwards on whether the format, length, and timing actually worked well for them

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

Policy Change Isn’t the Only Goal: A Guide to What Policy Engagement Can Achieve

Written by Tome Sandevski. Posted in Content, Introduction. No Comments on Policy Change Isn’t the Only Goal: A Guide to What Policy Engagement Can Achieve

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:

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.

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.

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.

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?

Setting the Stage: Key Concepts and Actors in Policy Engagement

Written by Tome Sandevski. Posted in Content, Introduction. No Comments on Setting the Stage: Key Concepts and Actors in Policy Engagement

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?

Conversations that Open Doors

Written by Tome Sandevski. Posted in Content, Teaching and Learning Methods CS. No Comments on Conversations that Open Doors

A World Café on Policy Careers and How Policymaking Institutions Work. A Case Study from Goethe-University Frankfurt

Key features in a nutshell

This event format brings early-career researchers into direct conversation with practitioners from regional and national ministries and government agencies, the European Commission, NGOs, and media in a relaxed, small-group setting
Using the World Café method, participants rotate between tables across three discussion rounds, allowing them to engage with multiple practitioners and perspectives in a single session
Early-career researchers gain firsthand insight into how ministries and other policy institutions actually work – knowledge that cannot be obtained from reading official documents alone
The format addresses a structural gap in many academic careers: researchers rarely have the opportunity to ask practitioners directly about career pathways, entry requirements, and the realities of working at the science-policy interface

How does the format work?

This event format was developed and is co-organized by the Policy Engagement Unit at Goethe University Frankfurt – through the Mercator Science-Policy Fellowship Programme and the Erasmus+ project ENGAGEgreen — and the Goethe Research Academy for Early Career Researchers (GRADE). The combination of science-policy expertise and graduate school infrastructure makes it particularly effective, as it addresses two knowledge gaps simultaneously.

First, early-career researchers often do not know how to make their research expertise available to professionals in ministries, the European Commission, NGOs, or media – and they rarely understand what those institutions actually need in terms of scientific input. Second, early-career researchers face a fundamental career decision: whether to pursue a path in academia or beyond. Direct conversations with practitioners provide them with a realistic picture of what non-academic careers at the science-policy interface actually look like.

Since its launch in 2019, the format has been continuously refined. To date, more than 60 policymakers and practitioners and 250 early-career researchers from Goethe University Frankfurt, TU Darmstadt, and Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz have participated.

The event can be organized in five steps.

Step 1: Write the event description

A clear event description helps attract the right participants – both early-career researchers and practitioners. The description should explain the purpose of the event, the key discussion questions, and the methods used. It serves as the basis for announcements in course catalogues, newsletters, and websites.

A sample event description:

Constructive dialogue among science, policy, media, and civil society requires more than good communication from researchers. Policy institutions, NGOs, and the media also need staff who can understand scientific findings and bring them to bear on societal decision making. This event explores how researchers can successfully make the transition from academia to ministries and other policy organizations, the European Commission, international organizations, NGOs, and media — and what challenges await them along the way.

We discuss the following questions with policymaking professionals and representatives from media and NGOs:

In what contexts do you draw on scientific expertise, and how do you access and use research findings?
What career pathways exist in your organization, and what are the entry prospects for doctoral researchers?

What competencies and experiences are most important for making the transition from academia?
How does working in a policy institution, NGO, or media organization differ from academia – with respect to pace, decision making, and ways of working – and why?

Methods: brief inputs by practitioners from various organizations; Q&A with the audience; small-group discussions; informal lunch with practitioners.

Step 2: Plan and organize the event

Fix the date and book the room five to seven months in advance. The room should comfortably accommodate 30 to 60 people. Use a banquet layout: round or rectangular tables with five to eight chairs each. Depending on the number of practitioners invited, you will need between five to twelve tables.

Once the event description is finalized, include it in the course catalogue of your graduate school or early-career researcher support structure so that participants can register in advance. A waiting list system is useful for popular editions of the event.

Step 3: Recruit practitioners and table facilitators

Reach out to policymakers and representatives from NGOs and media by contacting practitioners who are fellows or alumni of science-policy programs at your institution or partner universities. Human resources offices at ministries and public agencies can also be useful points of contact. Provide the event description and invite practitioners to join as experts. Aim to recruit between six to ten practitioners per event — enough to offer participants a meaningful choice of tables and perspectives across three rounds.

At the same time, recruit colleagues to serve as table facilitators. Their role is to keep discussions on track, ensure all participants have a chance to speak, and note down the questions raised by early-career researchers for later evaluation.

Step 4: Run the event

Practitioners typically arrive 15 to 30 minutes before the start of the event. Each practitioner is assigned to a table for the duration of the event. A typical program is as follows:

A typical event outline looks like this:

09:30-10:00: Arrival, registration, and informal get-together

10:00-10:10: Introduction: hosting organizations and event format. In our case: Introduction of the ENGAGEgreen project, the Mercator Science-Policy Fellowship-Programme and the Goethe Research Academy for Early Career Researchers.

10:10-10:40: Each practitioner introduces themselves. Guiding questions for the introduction: What are the tasks of your organization? What are your individual tasks? When do you need scientific evidence? Via which channels do you gain access to scientific evidence (e.g., policy briefs, commissioned research reports, expert talks, policy events)? What are typical career paths in your organization?

10:40-11:20: The early-career researchers move to the tables. First discussion round (Q&A session at the tables). Early-career researchers and table facilitators move to a new table after each round. Practitioners remain at their tables throughout. This allows each practitioner to speak with three different groups over the course of the event, and each participant to meet at least three different practitioners.

11:20-11:30: Coffee break

11:30-12:20: The early-career researchers move to the next table of their choice. The practitioners remain at their tables. Second small-group discussion round.

12:20-12:30: Coffee break

12:30-13:10: The early-career researchers move to the next table of their choice. The practitioners remain at their tables. Third small-group discussion round.

13:10-13:20: Invite two or three practitioners and two or three early-career researchers to share their reflections in plenary: What was the most interesting thing you learned today? What surprised you most? Close by sharing a QR code linking to the electronic feedback form. Distributing the QR code at this moment – when participants are still in the room – consistently yields response rates of 70 percent or higher.

13:20-14:20: Light lunch and networking

Step 5: Evaluate and follow up

Process the participant feedback promptly and use it to adjust the format for future editions. Send thank-you notes to all practitioners within a few days of the event. Where participants have noted recurring questions or knowledge gaps, consider compiling these into a practical Q&A handout for future participants.

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

Workshop facilitators

Organizers are responsible for the full event cycle: writing the event description and announcing it via the relevant course catalogue or newsletter; booking the room, arranging seating, microphones, and catering; recruiting practitioners and table facilitators; and processing feedback after the event. The preparation phase typically spans several weeks.

Scientists

Early-career researchers should set aside approximately 3.5 to 4.5 hours for the event, including the informal lunch. Organizers may wish to share the key discussion questions in advance so that participants can prepare their own questions for practitioners.

Policymakers

Practitioners should set aside approximately 3.5 to 4.5 hours, including the informal lunch. Some practitioners bring career information materials to share with participants; this is encouraged and adds practical value to the conversations.

Sources and further reading

Brown, J. & Isaacs, D. (2005). The World Café: Shaping Our Futures through Conversations That Matter. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
World Café Method — theworldcafe.com
Erasmus+ project ENGAGEgreen
Mercator Science-Policy Fellowship Programme, Goethe University Frankfurt
GRADE — Goethe Research Academy for Early Career Researchers

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

Why Engage – or Not? An Icebreaker Exercise on the Pros and Cons of Policy Engagement

Written by Tome Sandevski. Posted in Content, Teaching and Learning Methods OV. No Comments on Why Engage – or Not? An Icebreaker Exercise on the Pros and Cons of Policy Engagement

Key features in a nutshell

This exercise invites participants to discuss the reasons for and against engaging with policymakers; while reasons such as impact, the politicization of expertise, and lack of resources and recognition tend to come up immediately; less obvious motivations such as the benefits of policy engagement for research itself, or the intrinsic rewards of the work are rarely mentioned; this quick, interactive exercise helps workshop participants surface and discuss their underlying assumptions regarding academic policy engagement
The exercise activates participants in the opening minutes of the workshop, with positive effects on their engagement and participation throughout the session
The exercise works equally well in in-person and in virtual workshop settings.

How does the format work?

An active audience is essential for a successful policy engagement workshop. It is equally important to surface the assumptions participants bring with them about what policy engagement is, why it matters, and what makes it difficult. This simple icebreaker achieves both goals in 10-20 minutes.

Step 1: Generate pro and con reasons

Divide participants into groups of two to four. Ask each group to discuss the following questions:

Cite four reasons why researchers should engage with policymakers; cite four reasons why they might choose not to.

In in-person workshops: provide cards and marker pens so groups can write down their answers – one reason per card.
In virtual workshops: use a tool like Mentimeter or a shared digital whiteboard.

Duration: 10 minutes

Step 2: Collect the answers

Ask one group to present their reasons; invite the other groups to add any reasons not yet mentioned.

In in-person workshops, ask groups to pin their cards to a pinboard. Take a photo of the results for documentation.
In virtual workshops, take a screenshot of the compiled answers.

Duration: 10 minutes

Step 3: Debrief

The answers can usually be grouped into the following categories. Facilitators should use these as a guide for the debrief discussion rather than as a fixed script.

Reasons in favor of policy engagement

Impact. Scientific evidence can improve the quality of policy decisions. Many researchers work on salient issues – health, energy, environment, climate, conflict, education – and want their findings to make a difference in the real world.

Giving back to society. Most research is funded by taxpayers. Researchers want to demonstrate the societal value of their work.

Access to funding. Commissioned research can be an important funding stream. Researchers may also engage with policymakers to raise awareness of their field and advocate for research budgets. This response is worth noting in the debrief: it shows that many participants do not yet distinguish between policy engagement and science advice on the one hand and lobbying, government affairs, and fundraising on the other. Making this distinction explicit is important, and this exercise therefore pairs well with a subsequent session on the differences between policy engagement and these related but distinct activities.

Benefits for research. Engaging with policymakers can help researchers gain new perspectives, identify emerging policy challenges, and generate new research questions or hypotheses. In surveys conducted among researchers participating in the joint policy engagement activities of the Rhine-Main Universities, around 60 percent report that engagement with policymakers has given them new ideas that benefit their own research. Policy engagement can also open doors to interviews with policymakers, access to data or internal documents, and partnerships with public institutions for research projects. This reason is rarely mentioned spontaneously, and it is worth drawing participants’ attention to it explicitly.

A rewarding experience. Policy engagement can be intrinsically motivating and genuinely enjoyable. This reason is almost never mentioned unprompted, and is worth addressing directly: researchers should only pursue policy engagement activities they find meaningful or at least tolerable. Intrinsic motivation is the most reliable predictor of sustained engagement. As a rule of thumb for participants: do not commit to activities you actively dislike!

Reasons against policy engagement

Lack of understanding of policymaking and policy engagement formats. Many researchers do not understand how policymaking works or which policy engagement formats exist beyond policy briefs, lengthy reports, or formal expert bodies. Workshops on policy engagement must therefore address both: how policy processes work, and the full range of formats available to researchers.

Perceived lack of impact. Workshop participants frequently report frustrating experiences: a 100-page commissioned report whose recommendations were ignored; a year’s work on an expert body that produced no policy change. Such experiences reflect a mismatch between researchers’ expectations and the realities of policymaking. This is often rooted in limited knowledge of how policy processes actually work and can be revisited productively when the workshop turns to explaining policymaking processes in more depth.

Lack of time and resources. Researchers face competing demands – research, teaching, administrative obligations – and often perceive policy engagement as time-consuming or expensive. This is a legitimate concern, but it is also a misconception worth addressing: policy engagement takes many forms, some of which require months of sustained effort, while others can be completed in a matter of hours or days.

Lack of recognition. While science communication and knowledge exchange are becoming increasingly valued in academic institutions, many researchers, particularly those doing fundamental research, remain concerned that engaging with policymakers may be seen as insufficiently academic. Recognition and reward systems for policy engagement are developing in many countries but remain underdeveloped in others.

Politicization of expertise. Many researchers worry about being associated with particular political parties or ideologies when taking public positions on policy issues. They fear being drawn into political debates or being held personally responsible for government decisions informed by their research. These concerns are reinforced by well-documented cases in which scientists were publicly attacked by politicians, media, or social media users for providing scientific evidence on contested issues.

Requirements from superiors or funding agencies. Funding agencies increasingly require projects to demonstrate policy impact. Institutional leaders sometimes ask researchers to produce policy publications or participate in policy events. While there may be good reasons for such requirements, they frequently generate frustration when researchers feel obliged to perform tasks they find meaningless or poorly suited to their expertise. Researchers in this situation should identify the policy engagement activities they are most likely to find meaningful and communicate clearly to their superiors about what they can realistically contribute. Where impact documentation is required, the goal should be to find activities that are both documentable and genuinely valued by the researcher.

Conclusions

The responses generated by this exercise will resurface throughout the workshop. Facilitators should note which reasons and which misconceptions appear most prominently in their group. They should use them as reference points when introducing subsequent topics such as policymaking processes, policy engagement formats, or the distinction between science advice and lobbying.

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

Workshop facilitators

Provide cards and marker pens for in-person workshops or set up a digital tool such as Mentimeter for virtual sessions. Communicate clearly at the outset that there are no right or wrong answers. The goal is to allow honest reflections to arise. Enforce the time limit: this is an icebreaker, not a full discussion, and should not exceed 20 minutes in total. Document the answers by photographing the pinboard or taking a screenshot.

Researchers, research managers, and other participants

Participants are encouraged to state their honest reasons for and against policy engagement without censoring themselves in search of the “right” answer. The exercise is most valuable when participants share genuine concerns and motivations.

Policymakers

If policymakers are present, they are invited to share their own perspective on why researchers should, or should not, engage with them. Facilitators can use this as an opportunity to contrast the researchers’ responses with those of the policymakers, often generating productive discussion.

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

Lost in Translation: How Researchers Lose Policymakers in 24 Slides

Written by Tome Sandevski. Posted in Content, Teaching and Learning Methods OV. No Comments on Lost in Translation: How Researchers Lose Policymakers in 24 Slides

Key features in a nutshell

This exercise helps participants identify the key elements of effectively presenting their research expertise to policymakers by analyzing a fictitious presentation from the perspective of a policymaker.
By stepping into the shoes of a policymaker, participants experience firsthand why slide count, language, and content selection matter — and what a difference the right framing makes.
Participants leave the exercise with a practical set of dos and don’ts for structuring, framing, and delivering research presentations to policy audiences.

How does the format work?

Step 1: Review the slides

Distribute an electronic or printed version of the fictitious presentation (LINK WILL FOLLOW) and ask participants to work through the slides using the following scenario:

You are working for a Member of the European Parliament. A friend of yours is a researcher who coordinates an EU project on sustainable public transportation in Europe.

The European Public Transportation Association has invited your friend to present the research findings from the EU project as well as policy recommendations for the future of sustainable public transportation in Europe at its policy conference in Brussels. The organizers made it very clear that the presentation must not exceed 10 minutes.

The conference will bring together 300 policymakers from the local, regional, national, and EU levels, as well as representatives from public transportation companies, civil society, and academia. Since your friend has never given a presentation to policymakers, he asks you for feedback on the draft version of his presentation.Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the presentation?”

Step 2: Test what stuck

After participants have reviewed the slides, ask them to close the presentation and answer the following questions from memory:

Seventeen researchers are mentioned in the presentation. How many of their names do you remember?
What do you remember about the four universities involved?
Do you recall the numbers of students, staff, and research institutes mentioned?
Do you remember the names of the predecessor projects of the SUSTRA(I)N project?

Most participants will struggle, and that is the point. Use their responses to open a discussion on why this information did not stick, and what that tells us about how research presentations are typically structured.

The fictitious presentation has 24 slides. The first 16 describe the project and consortium rather than presenting policy-relevant findings. That is far too many. Policymakers engage with researchers because of their expertise – not because their university has five departments and 32 research institutes.

Start with three key messages you want the policymakers to remember. Structure your presentation around the key messages
Use only 1-2 slides to briefly present your consortium, institution, or project

The presentation also relies heavily on acronyms that audiences outside the research community are unlikely to recognize. The slide-by-slide analysis typically surfaces the following issues, which facilitators can use to structure the debrief discussion:

Other slides also offer room for improvement:

Slide 5: The four academic partners are described in detail, while the 14 practice partners are not named; when giving a presentation at a conference organized and attended by practitioners, practitioner partners should also be mentioned
Slide 16: The eight work packages are presented, including the ones on theory and method development; interestingly, the work packages on long-term assessment of public infrastructure (WP6), perceptions of mobility in rural areas (WP7), and policy recommendations and practitioner training (WP8) are not mentioned in the remainder of the presentation
Slide 19:

=> Dispense with slides on theory or methods that policymakers are very unlikely to understand

Slide 18: When interacting with policymakers, researchers often complain about the lack of funding; sometimes, they do so before even mentioning their research findings, as in this case; while research funding is very important, the presented research project did not analyze research funding as such, and, therefore, complaining about the lack of research funding leaves a rude and unprofessional impression:
It is perfectly fine for researchers to discuss research funding issues with policymakers, but they should not hijack events to do so. Researchers should arrange separate meetings with policymakers to discuss research funding. They should use formal channels, such as consultations or position papers, or through academic associations. Also, they should be transparent about funding from the outset rather than taking policymakers by surprise, which might have the opposite effect than the one intended.

Slide 20: While researchers should clearly present their findings and criticize policy outcomes, they should not use language that policymakers can receive as inappropriate or disrespectful. Also, having 32 acronyms on a slide is too much, even if most of them are known.

Use respectful language when presenting critical research findings to policymakers.

Slide 21: The research project found that the government struggles with the long-term implementation of public transportation strategies and legal acts, especially during times of crisis. To ensure long-term implementation, the researchers recommend close cooperation between governing and opposition parties as well as earmarking a dedicated reserve for times of crisis. These recommendations are not realistic.

Focus on policy recommendations

Step 3 (optional)

Ask participants to revise the presentation: reduce the number of slides and adjust the remaining ones to make the presentation more effective for a policy audience.

Step 4 (optional)

Ask participants to compile a list of ten dos and don’ts for presenting research to policymakers.

The full exercise takes between 20 and 40 minutes, depending on how much discussion the debrief generates

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

Workshop facilitators

Share the fictitious presentation with participants ahead of or at the start of the session. Guide participants through the scenario, facilitate the memory test in Step 2, and lead the debrief discussion. Familiarity with common pitfalls in science-policy communication is helpful but not required – the fictitious presentation is designed to make the issues visible without prior expertise.

Scientists and other participants

Review the fictitious presentation individually or in pairs. Contribute to the debrief discussion by sharing observations from the policymaker’s perspective. For Steps 3 and 4, participants revise the presentation and/or develop their own dos and don’ts list.

Policymakers

If policymakers are present, invite them to share what they look for in a research presentation – and what puts them off. Their perspective is often the most memorable part of the exercise and adds a dimension of authenticity that no facilitator can replicate.

Workshop Exercise — Giving Presentations to Policymaker

Scenario: You work for a Member of the European Parliament. One of your friends is a researcher who coordinates an EU project on sustainable public transportation in Europe. Your friend has been invited to present the project’s research findings and policy recommendations at a conference in Brussels.

See the full presentation

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

Understanding Policy Priorities: A Key Documents Exercise

Written by Tome Sandevski. Posted in Content, Teaching and Learning Methods OV. No Comments on Understanding Policy Priorities: A Key Documents Exercise

Key features in a nutshell

This exercise helps participants identify policy areas relevant to their research by exploring key policy documents such as government programs or sectoral strategies
By reading the documents in full or using the table of contents and search function participants practice an efficient, targeted approach to navigating lengthy policy documents

How does the format work?

Most local, regional, or national governments in OECD countries, the European Commission, international organizations, and political parties publish documents that set out their priorities: government programs, strategic plans, work programs, or party platforms. These documents are essential reading for researchers who want to engage with policymakers effectively: they reveal which issues are on the political agenda, what language policymakers use to describe them, and where potential entry points for science-policy engagement exist. This exercise introduces participants to this type of document and asks them to map their own research expertise onto current policy priorities.

Step 1: Choose your document

Ask participants to select a policy priority document relevant to their institutional or national context. Depending on the workshop audience, facilitators may preselect two to four documents or invite participants to choose their own.

Step 2: Navigate efficiently

Participants can read the documents in full if they want to. Alternatively, ask them to only use two tools: the table of contents to get an overview of the document’s structure and the search function to look up terms related to their research.

Ask participants to reflect on the following questions as they browse:

Do you find topics in this document on which you have research expertise?
Which policy issues are of particular interest to you?
What language does the document use to describe the issues you work on? Does it match the terminology you use in your research? Do you understand the terminology?
Are there topics you expected to find that are absent or unexpected topics that are prominently featured?

Step 3: Debrief

Facilitate a short plenary discussion. Useful questions include:

Where did you find the strongest connections to your own research?
Were there any surprises, topics that were more prominent or less prominent than you expected?
Did the language used in the document differ from how you would describe the same issues in an academic context? What does that tell you about how to communicate your research to policymakers?

The debrief typically takes 10–20 minutes, and productive conversations about the gap between academic and policy language often arise Steps 1 and 2 can be sent to participants in advance, with Step 3 conducted as a plenary discussion during the workshop. The full exercise – including the debrief – takes between 30 and 60 minutes, depending on group size and the depth of discussion.

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

Workshop facilitators

Select two to four documents in advance that are most relevant to the workshop audience and share them with participants before the session if possible. For international audiences, prepare a short overview of the types of policy priority documents that exist at national, EU, and international levels. Facilitate the debrief discussion, paying particular attention to differences in language between academic and policy documents – this is often the most productive thread.

Scientists and other participants

Browse the selected document using the table of contents and search function, reflect on the questions in Step 2, and contribute to the debrief. Participants who already engage with policymakers are encouraged to reflect on whether they have previously used documents like these to prepare for meetings or to identify relevant contacts.

Policymakers

If policymakers are present, invite them to share how they themselves use documents such as coalition agreements or work programs in their day-to-day work – and how they would expect researchers to engage with them. Their perspective on the gap between political language and research language is often illuminating.