Tome Sandevski heads the policy engagement unit at Goethe-University Frankfurt, where he coordinates the joint policy engagement projects of the Rhine-Main-Universities Goethe-University Frankfurt, Technical University Darmstadt and Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz.

The ENGAGEgreen policy engagement toolkit provides an overview of the many formats scientists, research managers, and knowledge exchange officers can use to give the policymakers academic expertise.

One can wonder whether a policy engagement toolkit is needed since numerous guides on how to write policy briefs or how to give evidence to a parliament already exist. The reasons for developing our policy engagement toolkit are threefold: First, we understand it 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”. Policy engagement is not only about writing policy briefs. Many formats like pairing schemes, policy fellowships, hackathons, or visits to research sites exist. Yet, it proves very challenging for scientists and other university staff, as well as policymakers, to find structured overviews on formats of policy engagement. Many policy engagement formats cater to constituents on the regional or national level, making it challenging to share practice cases across borders.

Second, the ENGAGEgreen policy engagement toolkit addresses the challenges of time constraints, funding limitations, and the need for recognition in academic careers that often hinder policy engagement. While it may not solve these issues, it provides practical solutions and guidance, enabling our readers to assess the suitability of different engagement formats for their specific needs, thereby saving time and resources.

Third, the ENGAGEgreen policy engagement toolkit is designed to be inclusive, addressing not only scientists and policymakers but also research managers and knowledge exchange officers at universities. By considering the stakeholders' needs and roles, the toolkit aims to enhance institutional support for policy engagement and foster the development of institutional capacities.

Fourth, including academic research in policymaking can improve its quality. Likewise, policy engagement can generate new ideas for academic research. Since the latter perspective is often missing in policy engagement guides, we want to consider policy engagement as a bidirectional way of knowledge exchange.

The toolkit cannot provide how-to guides on all possible ways of policy engagement. It is not a recipe book in this regard, and it is certainly not a book on nutritional science. Think about the toolkit as a collection of chapters (or modules). Each chapter consists of a concise description of a policy engagement format or structure and a concise example or various examples by scientists, research managers, knowledge exchange officers, or policymakers on the respective format. In doing so, we want to show that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to policy engagement formats.

This is not necessarily the case.

Of course, writing a policy report of 500 pages or participating in an expert body for several years are very time-consuming exercises. Luckily, these are just some of the formats or structures of policy engagement. The below table provides an overview of the time required for the various formats of policy engagement.

The table shows that different formats require various amounts of time. The support structure is often essential: Does a researcher have to write a 100-page policy report alone or in a team? Does a researcher have to organise a policy workshop alone, or can he concentrate on the workshop's content while the support staff handles the organisational issues?

The ENGAGEgreen policy engagement toolkit will provide an overview of possible knowledge exchange formats for various target groups: scientists, support staff (research managers, knowledge exchange officers, science communication staff), and policymakers. To make it clear, not everyone has to do everything every day! Also, there is no magic formula for successful policy engagement. Some formats focus on informing policymakers rather than aiming at policy impact. Each format has its opportunities and limitations, which we will explain.

Our toolkit describes knowledge exchange formats and includes a section on cross-cutting issues. Knowing how to write a policy brief is very important, but equally important is knowing how to reach policymakers with a policy brief, how to understand the policy context better, how to time your policy engagement, and how to evaluate your policy engagement.

We conducted desk research to identify various knowledge exchange formats. We browsed many websites of scientific institutions and policymaking organisations to find information on various formats. Please note: The toolkit does not result from a scientific research project. We are explaining the key features of various policy engagement formats. We did not have the resources to conduct a proper scientific analysis of the policy engagement format we presented. Therefore, do not take our descriptions of policy engagement formats as set in stone. Other scientists, knowledge or policymakers exchange officers might have described the policy engagement formats differently.

Also, we understand that there might be a bias for geographic and linguistic reasons. We browsed numerous websites in English or Catalan, Czech, French, German, Italian, and Spanish. We want to include examples from more countries than English-speaking countries or the countries of project partners. To do so, we need your help! Let us know if the knowledge exchange formats we describe work differently in your country! Or even better: submit an example!

We might also alter our descriptions in the future because many of the formats we describe are rare.

We do not have a dogmatic understanding of the various policy engagement formats. For example, we state that policy briefs are a maximum of a few pages long. Yet, one will find policy briefs of 15 pages or more. We did not survey policy briefs to determine whether the average length of a policy brief is four pages or 6.5 pages.

The toolkit consists of an introduction followed by various examples. The examples show how the respective knowledge exchange formats can be implemented. They allow scientists, knowledge exchange managers, and policymakers to reflect on their experience: How did they plan and implement the respective formats? What worked very well? What would they do differently in hindsight? If you know the format, you can skip to the examples directly.

The policy toolkit exists in English, Catalan, Czech, French, German, Italian, and Spanish. Please note: The content of the various versions might vary because we tried considering local or national context when writing the chapters. For example, while policy recommendations are an essential feature of policy briefs in Anglo-Saxon countries, they are only sometimes found in German-speaking countries. Therefore, if you live in one of the EU countries mentioned above, we recommend reading the chapters in the respective languages. Otherwise, we recommend the English version. Please consider that we publish the English versions first; the versions in the other languages follow a few weeks.

Support staff. We define support staff as university employees who can provide funding, training, guidance, or organisational support to scientists to plan, conduct or evaluate policy engagement activities. Support staff comprises staff like policy engagement officers. While full-time policy engagement officers are difficult to find at many universities, knowledge exchange, science communication, research management, or event organisation staff can also assist scientists. Also, heads of universities, academic departments, institutes, and research groups can provide critical support.

Our assessment of the required resources regarding time and funding is based on our experience with the formats, feedback from scientists, support staff, and policymakers, and, in many cases, plain common sense. When assessing the resources regarding time, we refer to the net amount of time needed to conduct the respective format once. For example, we state that writing one policy blog post takes a couple of hours. Writing more than one will take more time, accordingly. Also, we refer to the net amount of time. Suppose scientist A writes a policy brief in two hours and sends it to his co-author (scientist B). Scientist B also needs two hours to make some changes, but he does so after three weeks and numerous reminders from his co-author. In such a case, the time required to write the policy briefs was four hours rather than three weeks.

Regarding funding resources, we deliberately dispensed with stating concrete sums because our toolkit addresses a transnational readership in many countries. Salary and cost levels vary across countries. Spending 5,000 Euros to organise a policy event might be money for scientists in country A but not country B. Therefore, the examples in the toolkit provide information on resources regarding the amount of time spent or the number of participants.

The policy engagement toolkit is still in development. Please email science-policy@uni-frankfurt.de with comments on our chapters or suggestions for format or case study descriptions. We look forward to your feedback!

Support staff. We define support staff as university employees who can provide funding, training, guidance, or organisational support to scientists to plan, conduct or evaluate policy engagement activities. Support staff comprises staff like policy engagement officers. While fulltime policy engagement officers are difficult to find at many universities, knowledge exchange, science communication, research management, or event organisation staff can also assist scientists. Also, heads of universities, academic departments, institutes, and research groups can provide critical support.

Our assessment of the required resources regarding time and funding is based on our experience with the formats, feedback from scientists, support staff, and policymakers, and, in many cases, plain common sense. When assessing the resources regarding time, we refer to the net amount of time needed to conduct the respective format once. For example, we state that writing one policy blog post takes a couple of hours. Writing more than one will take more time, accordingly. Also, we refer to the net amount of time. Suppose scientist A writes a policy brief in two hours and sends it to his co-author (scientist B). Scientist B also needs two hours to make some changes, but he does so after three weeks and numerous reminders from his co-author. In such a case, the time required to write the policy briefs was four hours rather than three weeks.

Regarding funding resources, we deliberately dispensed with stating concrete sums because our toolkit addresses a transnational readership in many countries. Salary and cost levels vary across countries. Spending 5,000 Euros to organise a policy event might be money for scientists in country A but not country B. Therefore, the examples in the toolkit provide information on resources regarding the amount of time spent or the number of participants.