Content - 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.

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

Understanding Policymaking Institutions: An Organisational Chart Exercise

Written by Tome Sandevski. Posted in Content, Teaching and Learning Methods OV. No Comments on Understanding Policymaking Institutions: An Organisational Chart Exercise

Key features in a nutshell

This exercise helps participants understand how policymaking institutions are structured by exploring the organizational charts of ministries, the European Commission, international organizations, and other public bodies.
By mapping their own research expertise onto the internal structure of a ministry or directorate-general, participants identify concrete entry points for science-policy engagement.
Rather than overwhelming participants with theoretical lectures on governance, this method uses a practical, discovery-led approach where scientists look up real-world organizational structures.

How does the format work?

Organizational charts are one of the most underused tools in science-policy engagement. They reveal not just what a ministry or directorate-general works on, but how it is structured: which units exist, what they cover, and where the interfaces between policy areas lie. For researchers trying to identify the right contact within a large institution, an organizational chart is an essential starting point.

This exercise asks participants to explore the organizational charts of policymaking institutions relevant to their own research and to compare what they find with what they expected.

Step 1: Choose your institution

Ask participants to identify a policymaking institution relevant to their research expertise and visit its website. Participants can choose ministries at the national or, where applicable, regional level, directorates general of the European Commission, and international organizations.

Step 2: Predict before you explore

Before looking at the organizational charts, ask participants to write down five policy issues they expect the institution to work on. For example, a researcher focusing on energy might expect to find units covering renewable energy, nuclear energy, electricity grids, and energy taxation.

This prediction step is important: it activates prior assumptions and makes the comparison in Step 3 more revealing.

Step 3: Explore the organizational chart

Ask participants to look up the organizational chart of their chosen institution and compare it with their predictions:

Which of the policy issues you expected are reflected in the chart?
Which topics did you not expect to find?
Are there units whose remit is unclear from the name alone?
Compare the organizational structure of a regional or national ministry with the organizational chart of a directorate general of the European Commission or international organization: What differences do you notice in how they are structured?

Step 4: Debrief

Facilitate a plenary discussion. Discuss the questions asked in step 3. Additional helpful questions are:

What surprised you most about the organizational chart?
Where would you direct a policy brief or an event invitation based on what you found?
Did the structure help you identify a specific unit or contact person you had not previously considered?

The debrief typically takes 15–30 minutes and often generates lively discussion. The full exercise – including the prediction step and debrief – takes between 30 and 60 minutes, depending on group size and the depth of discussion. Steps 1–3 can be sent to participants in advance, with Step 4 conducted as a plenary discussion during the workshop.

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

Workshop facilitators

Prepare a short overview of how the relevant institutions are structured (e.g., the standard structure of a German federal ministry or the DG system of the European Commission) to share with participants before or during Step 3. Facilitate the debrief discussion. No specialist knowledge of the institutions is required– the exercise is designed to surface participants’ own discoveries.

Scientists and other participants

Identify a relevant policymaking institution, make their predictions in Step 2, explore the organizational chart in Step 3, and contribute to the debrief. Participants who already have contacts within a ministry or directorate general of the European Commission are encouraged to reflect on where exactly those contacts sit within the institutional structure and what that tells them about the scope of their existing network.

Policymakers

If policymakers are present, invite them to comment on how their own institution’s organizational chart reflects – or not – day-to-day realities. In practice, formal structures and informal working relationships often diverge, and policymakers can offer invaluable insight into how decisions actually flow within an institution.

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

Methods: How to Implement Participatory Approaches

Written by Esteban Romero-Frías. Posted in Content, Cross-Cutting Issues OV. No Comments on Methods: How to Implement Participatory Approaches

Summary: Key features in a nutshell

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

Description

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

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

How does the format work?

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

Challenges

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

Tasks and resources

Scientists

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

Knowledge exchange managers and research managers

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

Policymakers

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

ENGAGEgreen Project and UGR County Councils

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

Sources and further reading

Don’t Waste Your Time and Funding: Why Dissemination Matters as Much as Content

Written by Tome Sandevski. Posted in Content, Cross-Cutting Issues OV. No Comments on Don’t Waste Your Time and Funding: Why Dissemination Matters as Much as Content

Key features in a nutshell

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

What is the issue?

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

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

Strategy 1: Stakeholder mapping and personalized outreach

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strategy 2: Media, social media, and dissemination platforms

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

Strategy 3: Personal networks

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

Strategy 4: Dissemination channels of partner organizations

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

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

Combining strategies

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

Tasks and resources

Researchers

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

Knowledge mobilizers

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

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

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

Resources and further reading

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

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

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

Providing Evidence on School Closures during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Written by Tome Sandevski. Posted in Actors & Institutions cs - english, Content. No Comments on Providing Evidence on School Closures during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Interview with Professor Reyn van Ewijk (Chair of Statistics and Econometrics at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz)

Prof. Dr. Reyn van Ewijk is Professor of Statistics and Econometrics at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz. He has a background in economics, psychology, and epidemiology. In his research, he uses econometric statistical methods, in particular so-called natural experiments, to study human health. He uses large databases such as biobanks and registry data.

Professor von Ewijk, in the summer of 2021 you provided the German Academy of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine / an umbrella organization for pediatric and adolescent medical societies with information for a statement for the Federal Constitutional Court. How did the contact come about?

At that time, I was active in the COVID-19 Public Health Competence Network as a representative of the German Society for Health Economics. Within this network, I came into contact with a representative of the German Society for Social Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. The pediatricians were interested in the economic impact of pandemic-related measures in schools. I provided input on this, and later the German Society for Social Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine was asked by the German Academy of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine to contribute to a statement to the Federal Constitutional Court regarding the ban on in-person classes. I also provided some advice on this.

Did you have the necessary information at hand when you received the request, or did you have to do more research yourself?

At the time, I had already given a few lectures on the short- and long-term consequences of school closures and was quite familiar with the existing scientific literature on this topic. I had also started my own research project, together with some colleagues, in which we investigated how school openings in Germany after the 2021 summer vacation affected incidence rates. Thus, I was deeply familiar with the topic and only had to spend a little extra time gathering more information and evidence.

At the end of 2021, you published an analysis on the containment effect of schools on the spread of Sars-Cov-2. What was the key message of your analysis?

We analyzed the impact of school openings on the spread of Sars-Cov-2 based on different times for the ending of the summer vacation in German federal states. School openings initially led to a brief increase in infection numbers as asymptomatic cases were detected through testing. Subsequently, opening schools under strict hygiene measures and mandatory testing led to decreasing infection rates. This shows that schools can contribute to pandemic control under certain conditions. School closures, on the other hand, can make the important monitoring of infection rates more difficult and should only be used as a last resort due to the serious consequences for children.

The topic of school closures during the Covid-19 pandemic has been the subject of much controversy in Germany. Were you worried that your study would push you into a political corner?

At that time, it was clear from all the scientific literature – both before and during the pandemic – that school closures lead to significant learning losses, especially in Germany, where the digital infrastructure in schools was poor and made distance learning difficult. Such effects are particularly strong among socially weaker groups and reinforce social inequality. In addition, school closures have long-term negative consequences for health, income, attitudes towards society, etc. In Germany, we had a very effective system for testing and hygiene measures in schools. Against this background, it was more important to me to bring our results and the message they conveyed into the discussion than to worry about being pushed into a political corner.

Did the media pick up on their findings?

Our work was picked up and discussed by several newspapers, including Die Welt and Bild, as well as by radio stations and on online news.

Have you received any feedback from policymakers?

We had no direct contact with politicians. Nevertheless, they have probably heard about our research in the media or in a policy report we wrote. Policymakers base their decisions and the content of their communication on many different influencing factors. They do not always mention these factors explicitly, and even if they do, we do not always find out about them. Therefore, we cannot know exactly if and how our research has influenced policy. However, one media report suggests that we have had at least some influence, as the Minister of Education of Bavaria explicitly referred to our work when he promised to do everything possible to keep schools open.

Tome Sandevski (Goethe-University Frankfurt) conducted this interview.

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

Don’t Just Present – Connect! A Researcher’s Guide to Policy Events

Written by Tome Sandevski. Posted in Content, Dialogue-Oriented Formats OV. No Comments on Don’t Just Present – Connect! A Researcher’s Guide to Policy Events

Key features in a nutshell

Policy events offer three distinct dimensions for scientific impact, moving from formal presentation to individual relationship building:

Formal engagement: Presenting expertise during panel discussions, lectures, presentations, or workshops.
Informal networking: Building direct connections during coffee breaks, lunches, and receptions.
Strategic follow-up: Converting brief encounters into sustained, collaborative policy dialogues post-event.

Scientists should not attend policy events just to deliver a speech or participate in a panel discussion; they should attend to have informal conversation and to secure two to three meaningful follow-up meetings.
Breaks, lunches, and receptions are as important at the sessions: Organizers of policy events should allow for networking opportunities and informal discussion during breaks.

How does the format work?

To maximize time and impact, researchers must view every policy event through three structural dimensions.

The formal dimension (The platform)

This includes panel discussions, keynote presentations, and interactive workshops. Securing an active role as a speaker or panelist establishes institutional credibility and highlights relevant research. But this is merely the hook—not the intended result.

The informal dimension (The connection)

Coffee breaks, lunch hours, and evening receptions are where real policy alignment happens. Informal settings encourage participants to speak more candidly about constraints, political timelines, and knowledge gaps than a public panel allows. Researchers should avoid the temptation to check emails, isolate themselves within academic circles, or leave early.

The follow-up dimension (The impact)

High-value conversations should conclude with researchers securing permission to reach out again, transforming a brief chat into long-term policy contribution.

Visual blueprint: Why micro-networking beats macro-presentations

Researchers often underestimate verbal exchange compared to publications. At a natural pace, speakers deliver roughly 130–160 words per minute (approx. half a page of text). Consider how two different strategies compare:

Researcher A (The presenter): Delivers a 15-minute presentation plus 5 minutes in Q&A (20 minutes total speaking time = ~10 pages of text transmitted). During breaks, this researcher checks emails, networks only with known academic peers, and leaves early.

Researcher B (The networker): Holds no formal speaking role but actively engages policymakers during breaks and receptions for a combined 50 minutes of conversational speaking time (~25 pages of targeted text transmitted). This researcher secures three explicit agreements for future check-ins. Result: Three scheduled follow-up meetings to pitch evidence directly.

Tasks and resources

Researchers

How can researchers prepare for networking?

Step 1: Analyze & map the room (Pre-event)

Researchers should review the program and participant list in advance. They should identify the specific policymakers or other practitioners they would like to connect with
If the list is not public, researchers should ask the organizers about the expected audience profile

Step 2: Prepare policy-ready materials

Researchers should prepare a 60-second elevator pitch focusing strictly on the policy relevance of their expertise, avoiding pure academic debates or methodology
Researchers should bring physical copies of brief texts such as policy briefs, factsheets, or infographics.

Step 3: Execute strategic approach & icebreakers

Scientists should approach targets during breaks; they should respect boundaries (skipping those on active phone calls or those writing emails on their laptops) but confidently join standing groups at tables with a polite, “Mind if I join you?”
Open-ended icebreakers can include:
What session are you most looking forward to?
Which session did you find most interesting so far?
What did you make of [speaker’s] argument on X?
Follow-up questions can include:
What kind of scientific evidence would be useful to you?
What’s the biggest challenge you face on this topic?

Step 4: Secure the pivot to follow up

If the connection is positive, scientists should pivot before the break ends: “I’d love to send a brief update when our next research results are out. May I get your card or scan your LinkedIn QR code?”
Sharing a physical policy brief containing clear contact details is an effective way to create an immediate, professional handoff

Step 5: Lock in the meeting (Post-event)

Scientists should send a tailored follow-up email within 48–72 hours
They should provide links to any data or publications discussed and propose a follow-up meeting over the next weeks

Knowledge exchange officers and research managers

Designing events that maximize science-policy impact requires moving away from overcrowded slide presentations and prioritizing structured interaction. Knowledge exchange officers or research managers who organizeing events should consider the following suggestions:

Protect networking buffers: For any event exceeding two hours, organizers should embed coffee breaks of at least 20 to 30 minutes; organizers must never compress breaks when sessions run over time, and they should inform speakers beforehand that time limits will be strictly enforced.
Curate high-visibility materials: Organizers should provide large, highly legible name tags; if possible, they can embed QR codes on badges that link directly to professional profiles
Moderate dynamic Q&A sessions: Moderators should structure Q&A blocks to draw out room expertise. They should announce clearly at the start: “Questions must be limited to 1–2 minutes to allow room for everyone.” This prevents long statements from the audience and helps scientists identify interesting peers for the next break
Knowledge exchange officers and research managers can support scientists by developing clear elevator pitches and designing digestible factsheets
Knowledge exchange officers and research managers can actively introduce researchers to participating policymakers on the floor during receptions

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

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

Resources

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

Zack, Devora (2019), Networking for People Who Hate Networking: A Field Guide for Introverts, the Overwhelmes, and the Underconnected, Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Tailored Expert Trainings

Written by Jaroslav Burian. Posted in Content, Dialogue-Oriented Formats CS. No Comments on Tailored Expert Trainings

Description

Practical trainings conducted by academic professionals for public administration employees – referred to as Tailored Expert Trainings – represent a dynamic form of cooperation between academia and the applied sector. These trainings facilitate the direct transfer of up-to-date knowledge from research, development, and university education into the day-to-day practice of public administration. They differ from typical commercial courses by their high degree of specialization, narrow thematic focus, and strong customization to the specific needs of participants.

The objective of such trainings is to strengthen the professional competencies of public administration officials through interactive instruction based on scientific know-how. The content is built around real-life problems and data from the public sector. The ability to work with real datasets and tailor the course material to the actual needs of participants is a key added value of this cooperation model.

Objectives

Tailored Expert Trainings aim to achieve the following core objectives:

Transfer of specialized knowledge and skills that are not typically covered in commercially available courses and reflect the latest scientific and technological trends.
Customizing content to specific participant groups and their institutional settings.
Enhancing the practical applicability of expert knowledge through hands-on data work and real-world examples.
Strengthening interdisciplinary and inter-institutional collaboration between university departments and public sector bodies.
Building long-term relationships and partnerships, which may lead to contract research, expert consultations, or joint publicly funded projects.
Providing researchers with valuable insights and inspiration for new research questions and applied studies derived from real-world challenges encountered by public administration professionals.

How does the format work?

Target Group of Participants

Potential training participants may include:

Clerks, analysts, and technical staff in central and local government institutions, public agencies, and related organizations.
Managers and department heads, project or team leaders.
Mayors, deputy mayors, or other public administration representatives involved in adopting or implementing new technologies or procedures.
The selection of training topics should be closely aligned with the profile and needs of the participant group.

Group Size

The recommended group size is 5 to 10 participants. Smaller groups enable higher interactivity, individual consultations, and flexible pacing of the training.

Duration and Timing

The recommended length of training is 1 to 2 working days, depending on topic complexity and the desired level of depth. To accommodate the availability of both public officials and academics, training is best scheduled outside the main teaching semester (e.g., during the summer or examination period).

Training Format

Trainings are highly practice-oriented, emphasizing real-world examples, participant-led tasks, and hands-on engagement.
It is advisable to work with real datasets and case examples that participants bring from their institutions.
Avoid generic or simulated data – instead, aim to incorporate real institutional data under the guidance of the trainer during independent work phases.
A two-trainer setup has proven effective – one leads the main lecture and demonstrations, while the other provides individual support to less advanced participants.

Trainers and Expertise

Trainings should be professionally guaranteed by a senior academic expert with experience in both research and practical application. Active involvement of PhD students and postdoctoral researchers is strongly recommended – they often contribute highly specialized and up-to-date knowledge. Pre-training preparation should include close communication with the participating institution regarding training goals, participant profiles, and expectations.

Example Training Topics

The following is a non-exhaustive list of possible themes. The content should always be customized:

Use of open data, its analysis and application in decision-making.
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and cartography – visualization of spatial data.
Fundamentals of process automation using scripting (e.g., Python, R).
Use of graphic software for creating maps, infographics, and reports.
Introduction to Artificial Intelligence and its use in public administration.
Data analysis and visualization – building interactive dashboards, maps, and summary charts.

Benefits for Participants

Participants (civil servants, public managers):

Acquisition of advanced skills and tools applicable to their daily work.
Opportunity to work with their own data and discuss real problems.
Enhancement of professional competencies and flexibility.

Academic Staff and Universities:

Opportunities for real-world collaboration and applied research inspiration.
Transfer of academic knowledge into practice.
Establishment of long-term partnerships with the public sector.

Public Administration Institutions:

Upskilling of employees in modern tools and methods.
More effective internal processes.
Enhanced innovation capacity and readiness for data-driven decision-making.

Challenges (and ways to address them)

Another potential challenge relates to the need for formal accreditation of trainings, especially in contexts where public administration institutions require officially recognized certification for their staff’s professional development. In some countries, such as the Czech Republic, accreditation can be granted by government bodies or professional associations (e.g., the Ministry of the Interior). However, the process often involves extensive documentation and compliance with formal standards, which may prolong the preparation timeline. To mitigate this, organizers should initiate accreditation procedures well in advance and maintain clear communication with accrediting institutions to ensure alignment with expected criteria.

A further challenge lies in managing the diversity of participant skill levels, which can significantly affect the group dynamic and the overall effectiveness of the training. Trainers must be flexible and responsive, ready to adjust the scope, depth, and pace of the content delivery in real time. Gathering feedback during the training—preferably through interactive formats—enables facilitators to make immediate modifications, such as skipping redundant sections or elaborating on more advanced topics as needed. Incorporating real-time feedback mechanisms and being prepared to adapt the training structure accordingly are crucial for maintaining participant engagement and ensuring the relevance of the training to all experience levels.

Required Funding for Activities

Trainings are typically funded by the contracting public institutions (municipalities, government bodies, etc.). The cost is calculated individually, based on university regulations and the financial capacity of the contracting institution. It includes trainer preparation, contact hours, and potential use of facilities or equipment. These trainings are considered highly specialized services, and may be funded from institutional training budgets or public grants.

Example

The Department of Geoinformatics, Faculty of Science, Palacký University Olomouc has been conducting specialized trainings for public administration professionals for over 15 years. The trainings are held irregularly and adapted to specific requests. They are accredited by the Czech Association for Geoinformation (ČAGI).

The courses focus on cartography, GIS, and remote sensing. The key principle is customization – including the use of participant data and institution-specific tasks. Trainings are held in university computer labs, typically using QGIS and ArcGIS. The format has consistently been evaluated by participants as highly beneficial.

An example of such a course was Unmanned Aerial Systems – Operation, Mapping, Photogrammetry, and Laser Scanning, conducted as part of continuous professional education. The two-day training (20 contact hours) combined lectures on UAV operation principles, relevant Czech and EU legislation, and sensor technologies with practical exercises in flying multirotor and fixed-wing drones, followed by data processing to produce orthophotos, digital terrain models, and 3D point clouds.

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

Student Internships

Written by Martina Miechová. Posted in Content. No Comments on Student Internships

What is the format about?

Student internships are a well-established form of collaboration between universities and policymaking institutions. They are particularly suitable for students in the later years of bachelor’s or master’s degree programmes. During an internship, students gain valuable professional experience and develop an understanding of how institutions operate from the inside. They become familiar with organisational structures, decision-making processes, strategic priorities, and day-to-day activities. Internships also provide opportunities to build professional networks that can support their future career development. For host institutions, internships offer the opportunity to benefit from students’ expertise, up-to-date academic knowledge, and fresh perspectives on the policy issues they address. The successful implementation of internships requires active engagement and sustained organisational support from both the university and the host institution. As such, this collaboration format contributes to institutionalising science-policy dialogue, expanding professional networks beyond the research community, and establishing long-term support mechanisms that become embedded in the functioning of both universities and policymaking institutions.

How it works:

The duration of the internship, its content, and the formal requirements are determined through an agreement between the university and the host institution. In some study programmes, internships are a compulsory part of the curriculum, while in others they are offered as an elective component that may replace part of the coursework or provide students with additional practical experience. In both cases, universities should actively encourage students to undertake internships within public sector institutions. An important role of the staff responsible for organising and coordinating internships is to identify suitable students and match them with the appropriate department or unit within the host institution. The aim is to ensure that students’ knowledge and skills align with the needs of the workplace while providing them with relevant practical experience. One possible approach to selecting suitable candidates is for the host institution to define the desired applicant profile, after which students can be matched based on their motivation letter and the qualifications they have acquired during their studies.

Before the internship begins, several practical arrangements need to be completed. These include obtaining approval from the relevant university department, arranging the recognition of the internship for ECTS credits where applicable, concluding an agreement between the student and the host institution, and appointing a supervisor(s) responsible for guiding the student throughout the internship. In addition to describing the internship tasks, the agreement may also specify working hours and the work location, the student’s level of involvement in the activities of the host institution, access rights to information, internal systems and tools, and the provision of any equipment required to perform the assigned tasks.

During the internship, the student becomes involved in the day-to-day activities of the host institution and contributes to tasks that reflect both the knowledge and skills acquired through their studies and the current needs of the host organisation. At the beginning of the internship, it is therefore important to align expectations by clarifying what the student already knows, what they are expected to learn during the internship, and what the host institution expects from them. Students typically begin with basic tasks that help assess their abilities while also providing a learning opportunity. As they gain experience, they can gradually take on more complex tasks and make a more substantial contribution to the work of the host institution. The internship may also include the delivery of a specific output or project.

Once the internship has been completed, it should be evaluated. The evaluation may take different forms (e.g. an assessment or feedback form or a report), but it should always focus on what the student has learned and how they have contributed to the host institution. The written evaluation is then submitted to the student’s academic department as confirmation of the completed internship and, where applicable, for the recognition of ECTS credits.

Challenges and how to solve them:

The format, content, and expected outcomes of an internship need to be adapted to its duration. A one-week internship focused primarily on familiarisation with the functioning of the institution will have a different structure than a several-month internship, which allows the student to become gradually involved in professional activities and take on a greater level of responsibility.
Students may have strong theoretical knowledge but no experience applying it in practice. Clear task assignments, regular feedback, and well-defined expected outcomes help prevent misunderstandings.
In the case of students without previous work experience, sufficient attention needs to be paid to their adaptation to the work environment, including the clear definition of rules, expectations, and formal and informal workplace practices.
The implementation of an internship places increased time demands on the supervisor and other staff involved in guiding the student. It is therefore appropriate to take this time investment into account already when planning the internship and to adapt the scope of tasks and the capacity of the host institution accordingly.
At some universities and institutions, internships are organised more on an operational basis, depending on the needs and possibilities of individual university departments/host institution units, or through the human resources department, which occasionally mediates internship opportunities. This may result in a limited offer of internships and organisational shortcomings related to their coordination. A suitable solution is to establish a unified internship system at the level of the entire institution, which clearly defines a contact point for internship coordination, procedures for assigning internships and communication with universities/host institutions, while also allowing individual units to define their needs and capacities. This makes it possible to better connect students with relevant host departments.

Tasks and resources:

Student:

The student is required to familiarize themselves with the conditions and content of the internship and to agree with the host institution and the university on the formal requirements of the internship (e.g., administrative requirements, ECTS credits recognition, internship schedule and scope). During the internship, the student actively participates in the activities of the host department and completes assigned tasks within the agreed scope and deadlines. The student applies the knowledge and skills acquired through their studies when addressing tasks while also learning new procedures and methods of work in practice. They communicate with their supervisor, regularly verify their understanding of assigned tasks, and make use of the feedback provided. The student respects the rules and operations of the host institution, including work procedures, internal regulations, and any requirements regarding the confidentiality of information. Upon completion of the internship, the student fulfills the requirements set by the university and the host institution for the recognition and successful completion of the internship.

Supervisor:

The supervisor provides professional guidance and support to the student throughout the internship. They assign tasks that correspond to the student’s knowledge and abilities, taking into account the current stage of the internship, with the aim of gradually increasing the student’s level of independence. The supervisor regularly monitors the completion of assigned tasks, provides feedback to the student, helps them understand the broader context of their work, and supports their involvement in the functioning of the workplace.

Coordination staff:

The relevant staff member on the university side (HR officer, department secretary/assistant, or other support staff) is responsible for publishing the internship offer, selecting a suitable candidate, and connecting them with the relevant department or unit of the host institution. They provide the student with all necessary information regarding the organization and conditions of the internship and, where appropriate, facilitate communication with the department management, the student affairs office, etc. The relevant staff member on the host institution’s side serves as the student’s contact person both before the start of the internship and throughout its implementation. They ensure communication with the management of the relevant workplace and the selected supervisor, oversee the finalization of the internship conditions, and arrange the necessary documentation (agreement, evaluation form, etc.).

Required resources:

Activity	Hours	Days	Weeks	Months
Internship organization and coordination by university and host institution support staff		✓
Internship implementation by the student			✓	✓
Internship implementation by the supervisor and other involved staff			✓	✓

Example:

Internship of a bachelor’s student in the Social Science Analyst programme at the Control Department – Support and Data Processing Unit of the Regional Authority of the Olomouc Region.

Scope and organization of the internship:

The internship was carried out over a total of 350 hours distributed across two semesters. The student attended the workplace three days a week. She had her own workspace in the office and access to the necessary technical equipment, including a computer. Two supervisors were involved in supervising the internship; the student shared a workspace with them, and they provided her with ongoing support and guidance. An internship agreement was concluded with the student, and upon completion of the internship, she received a certificate confirming completion of the placement as well as a written evaluation of the internship.

Professional focus of the internship:

The student’s focus is on qualitative data analysis, the interpretation of human behaviour, and social science perspectives. This differs from the usual agenda of the workplace, which primarily works with structured data and its quantitative processing. While the workplace typically analyses numerical data, the student contributed a perspective focused on understanding the broader contexts and factors underlying these data. Her professional focus therefore complemented the technically oriented approach of the workplace with insights from the social sciences.

Internship content and tasks:

During the first half of the internship, the student focused on basic data preparation and data cleaning. Specifically, her tasks included:

Processing and categorizing a dataset on cultural and creative industries in the region
Processing the list of regional investments with regard to the geographical location of investments for future map visualization
Graphical presentation of data: editing interactive charts and tables, standardizing terminology, and ensuring the consistency of exported data
Working with metadata for datasets on the data portal: using AI to create dataset descriptions and tables for open datasets published on the data portal

During the second half of the internship, the student worked on more advanced tasks, including:

Statistical evaluation of data on cultural and creative industries in the region (e.g., in relation to the demographics of municipalities, education, employment, etc.)
Familiarization with spatial analyses and data visualization using maps in ArcGIS software
Identification of potential new datasets suitable for publication as open data and preparation of the results in the form of a presentation for the public open data portal

Benefits of the collaboration:

The collaboration was beneficial for both parties. Thanks to her academic focus and subject-specific knowledge, the student brought a different approach to working with data, particularly qualitative analysis with an overlap into the field of psychometrics, while also significantly reducing the workload of the department by assisting with routine tasks. During the internship, the student expanded her knowledge of quantitative data processing, which represents a more technical aspect of working with data. She learned to work with various data formats, transform them into a standardized form, ensure consistency in data processing, and use freely available software tools for data visualization. At the same time, the internship represented the student’s first work experience and her first experience with the functioning of a public administration institution.

Exercise: The Invitation Test – Designing Events Policymakers Actually Attend

Written by Tome Sandevski. Posted in Content, Teaching and Learning Methods OV. No Comments on Exercise: The Invitation Test – Designing Events Policymakers Actually Attend

Making events appealing to policymakers

Summary: Key features in a nutshell

This exercise helps scientists and knowledge-exchange officers understand the difference between academic and policy-oriented events.
Policymakers need event descriptions and invitations that clearly demonstrate why attending the event would benefit them.

How does the format work?

Step 1: Share the two letters of invitation for a fictitious conference in Brussels with the workshop participants. Provide the following instruction: “You are working for a member of the European Parliament, and your boss has received two invitations to take part in panel discussions in Brussels. Unfortunately, both are scheduled for the same time. Your boss asks you to review the invitations and to recommend the one most likely to benefit her in terms of access to policy-relevant research, stakeholder dialogue, and visibility. Please read both invitations. Which one do you recommend? What aspects of the invitations do you find convincing? What aspects could be improved?”

Step 2: Ask the participants to read the two invitations. They have three minutes to do so.

Step 3: Ask the participants to identify the differences between the two invitations. What do they appreciate about the structure of each event? Which event is likely to be more beneficial for the MEP?

Invitation 1: Tis one has several weaknesses. First, it is too long, making it difficult to locate key information such as the date and venue. Second, it reads like a summary of an academic conference program clearly aimed at a scientific audience, featuring numerous acronyms and references to scholars who may be well known within their fields but are unlikely to be recognised outside academia. Third, the presence of major publishing houses and the launch of a new dataset may be compelling reasons for researchers to attend but are unlikely to attract policymakers. Fourth, a panel composed of three academics and one policymaker is not particularly appealing to a political audience. Finally, the event is held in Vilvoorde, which, while only around 11 km from the European Parliament, still takes approximately 30 minutes to reach by train or car — meaning the MEP would need to set aside at least an hour just for travel.

Invitation 2: The second is more effective for several reasons. First, it is concise and presents key information — date, venue, and purpose — immediately. Second, it makes clear from the outset why the MEP has been contacted personally. Third, the panel features one researcher with demonstrable policy experience as a member of an OECD expert group, alongside two representatives of prominent associations. Fourth, the invitation indicates that the event is expected to be well attended and likely to attract media coverage — both of which matter to policymakers. Finally, the venue is within walking distance of the European Parliament.

Step 4: Ask participants to identify and write down the features that make events appealing to policymakers.

For groups of up to ten participants, it is recommended that the findings be discussed in plenary using flip charts or interactive tools such as Mentimeter. For larger groups, participants should be split into breakout groups and given cards and pens to record their answers, which can then be shared and discussed in plenary.

Possible challenges and how to address them

Both invitations represent idealized types. While venues close to the European Parliament are advantageous, they may not always be affordable. Similarly, organizers cannot guarantee high attendance from prominent participants. It is therefore entirely reasonable to organize purely academic events when the resources or capacity to make them relevant for policy are not available.

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

Workshop facilitators

Facilitators are responsible for distributing printed or electronic versions of the invitations to participants. They should familiarize themselves with both invitations and reflect on the differences between the two events in advance.

Scientists and other participants

Participants read both invitation letters and take part in the subsequent discussion. The exercise and discussion together require between 10 and 20 minutes.

Policymakers

If policymakers are present, the facilitator should involve them in the discussion and invite them to share what criteria an event must meet for them to attend.

See invitation letters_rmu

Sources and further reading

Please add URL or publications, if applicable.

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

Assessing the Accessibility of (Policy) Publications

Written by Tome Sandevski. Posted in Content, Teaching and Learning Methods OV. No Comments on Assessing the Accessibility of (Policy) Publications

Putting Yourself in the Shoes of a Busy Policymaker

Key features in a nutshell

This exercise simulates the role of a parliamentary assistant to help researchers understand what busy policymakers undergo when reading policy publications.
It can be used in workshops or self-learning contexts: participants must identify the key messages of five policy publications within ten minutes.
The exercise highlights the importance of visual clarity, easily identifiable key messages, plain language, and visual elements such as bullet points, highlighted headers, tables, and graphs.

How does the format work?

Step 1: Select five publications between two and twenty pages each. Many researchers struggle to appreciate what it feels like to read publications on unfamiliar topics, so it is important that the publications cover a range of subject areas (e.g., environment, climate change, health, international security, education, AI). Choose two well-structured, accessible policy briefs that present their key messages up front —I recommend the policy briefs of theOECD, E3G, or the International Crisis Group.

Choose three other publications such as academic publications, which are more difficult to overview, because they lack elements like summaries, bullet points, or visualizations. Publications featuring a lot of body text, methods sections, and academic jargon are ideally suited for this exercise.

Step 2: Distribute either printed or electronic versions of the publications to participants along with the following instructions:

“You are working as an assistant to a member of parliament, who has a full schedule of committee meetings, interviews, and panel discussions today and tomorrow. Your boss has received five publications by post and needs topical expertise on the issues they cover. She has to take a phone call lasting approximately ten minutes and leaves the publications on your desk, asking you to brief her on their key messages once she is done. You have ten minutes to browse the publications. You are NOT allowed to use AI to summarize them. Can you identify the key messages within ten minutes? Which publications made it easy to do so — and which were difficult to review?”

Step 3: To add a degree of time pressure, announce the remaining time every two minutes. Participants must stop after ten minutes. Afterwards, ask them whether they were able to identify the key messages in each publication, and which features helped or hindered them.

Features that tend to help include summaries at the beginning, bullet points, meaningful headers and subheadings, tables, and clear, easy-to-read charts.

Features that tend to hinder include dense body text, generic or vague headers, jargon, and lengthy theory or methods sections.

For groups of up to ten participants, it is recommended to discuss the findings in plenary, using flip charts or interactive tools such as Mentimeter. For larger groups, participants should be split into breakout groups and given cards and pens to record their answers, which can then be shared and discussed in plenary.

Possible challenges and how to address them

Participants may find the exercise stressful or become frustrated when trying to identify key messages in publications on unfamiliar topics. This is an intentional phenomenon: policymakers rarely have much time and are regularly expected to engage with expert publications across a wide range of subjects.

Some participants may point out that policymakers increasingly use AI tools to summarize publications — a valid observation. But even AI-generated summaries can run to several pages. Moreover, printed publications remain in use in many countries and institutions.

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

Workshop facilitators

Facilitators are responsible for selecting the five publications and making them available — either in print or electronically. They should read all five publications themselves before the workshop. Preparation will require approximately 60 to 120 minutes; conducting the exercise will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Scientists and other participants

Participants browse the publications to identify their key messages and take part in the subsequent discussion. The exercise and discussion together require between 20 and 40 minutes.

Policymakers

If policymakers are present, the facilitator should involve them in the discussion and invite them to share what criteria a publication must meet for them to engage with it.