Joint Research Centre · Audience Research to Inform the Knowledge for Policy Web Platform Prepared by Uscreates and the Lisbon Council The European Commission’s Science and Knowledge

1

Audience Research to Inform the Knowledge for

Policy Web Platform

Prepared by Uscreates and the Lisbon Council

The European Commission’s

Science and Knowledge Service

Joint Research Centre

2

Executive summary

………………………………………………………………. 3

Section 1: Methodology and research questions

1.1 Research aims

………………………………………………………………. 21

1.2 Methods of engagement ………………………………………………………………. 22

1.3 Segmentation of survey respondents ………………………………………………………………. 24

1.4 Limitations of the methodology ………………………………………………………………. 25

Section 2: Findings

2.1. Overarching findings ………………………………………………………………. 28

2.2 Researcher-specific findings ………………………………………………………………. 36

2.3 Policymaker-specific findings ………………………………………………………………. 48

Section 3: Recommendations

3.1 Recommended strategy ………………………………………………………………. 57

3.2 Audience segmentation ………………………………………………………………. 60

3.3 Features and content ………………………………………………………………. 70

Section 4: Appendices ………………………………………………………………. 84

Contents

3

To inform the design of the new Knowledge for Policy web

platform, the JRC commissioned Lisbon Council and

Uscreates to undertake a piece of audience research with the

following aims:

● To understand how key audiences interact with

knowledge and incorporate it into their work.

● To understand how a digital web platform could

support some of these practices and needs; and

● To engage knowledge services and their audiences

in the iterative process of the web platform’s design;

and by that

● Supporting web platform development in the post-

launch phase.

Research aims and methodology

Executive summary

The audience research, conducted between December 2017 -

April 2018, gathered input from over 325 people across

science and policy fields in the European Union.

Research and analysis was iterative throughout the project,

building on emerging findings and exploring new questions

through four different research methods, selected to give

us both breadth and depth of insight:

Desk research 1.

Ethnographies and interviews 2.

Survey 3.

Focus groups 4.

A note on the text: when used as broad categories, “policymaker” and “researcher” incorporates individuals at all levels of seniority, unless otherwise indicated.

Executive summary

4

Summary insights

Executive summary

● Perceived value of JRC and the web platform

All audiences see the value of bringing the two communities

together, but question the value of “yet another web platform”.

Differentiation, therefore, is key to success.

● High profile and access to networks

The key value seen in this platform is the high profile and

potential to access networks across EU member states.

● Providing an overview

The JRC is seen as holding a valuable position in bringing

information together and providing an overview.

● Independent analysis

All audience groups see value in independent analysis and synthesis

of multiple forms of evidence.

● Providing credibility and curation

For the platform to be successful, it must ensure credibility of content,

and be curated in such a way as to be relevant and trusted by all users.

● Speaking different languages

The platform will need to navigate across linguistic and disciplinary

boundaries.

● Community management

Community management is crucial to maintain vibrancy and relevance.

● Varying timelines

Policymakers and researchers operate according to different timelines

and rhythms across the year, which will make community management

across the platform challenging.

● Lack of a sharing culture

A lack of ‘sharing culture’ may prove a barrier to uptake.

Overall, the research and policymaking communities will value the Knowledge for

Policy platform, but there is a significant challenge in bringing the two communities

together through the same sets of features and functions when they operate

according to such different rhythms and priorities. This research has found strong

recognition of the value of creating the platform, but also significant barriers to it

being used. A pattern emerged in this audience research whereby the reported

interest from the survey in activities linked to the platform was not backed up by

evidence in ethnographic interviews and focus groups, where the reality of this kind

of engagement showed that the pressures of time and privacy would place a barrier

on engagement. Despite this, a vast majority participants agreed in the value of the

platform, of knowledge sharing, and of engaging with researchers/ policymakers.

5

Executive summary Executive summary Summary insights about researchers

● Researchers are using traditional and non-traditional

channels for sourcing relevant information

Researchers seek new information via traditional academic

routes, but are increasingly using sites like twitter as a route

to finding the latest evidence, communicating what they do,

and connecting to other researchers.

● Needs related to times of year

Researchers may be bound within a strict cycle in their year,

particularly if waiting for new rounds of data, or the update to

an index. Sometimes they are asking specific questions,

sometimes they are more exploratory.

● Specific vs. general content interest

Researchers who are the target audience for the platform will vary

according to how specific or general their interest, and this will impact

on the kinds of interactions they are likely to have. This relates to trends

in research towards greater interdisciplinarity, particularly in research

that is relevant to a policy audience.

● Needs related to times of year

Researchers may be bound within a strict cycle in their year, particularly

if waiting for new rounds of data, or the update to an index. Sometimes

they are asking specific questions, sometimes they are more

exploratory.

● Navigating existing research projects

Despite many existing research platforms that appear to do this, there is

clear demand from researchers for a cross-EU platform that allows them

to connect and learn about other projects.

● Contributing to the web platform

Researchers would be willing to contribute content (despite the plethora

of other platforms), if there was the potential to increase the visibility of

their work at an EU level.

Researchers are familiar with engaging in online communities, and understand

that in order to have more policy impact with their research, they need to reach

out in new and varied ways. However, they also have unmet needs around

connecting with other researchers, and prioritise those kinds of interactions

above how they interact with the policymaking community. Despite their ease

with online communities and directories, they still value face-to-face

interactions with other researchers and those they are trying to influence.

6

Executive summary Executive summary Summary insights about researchers

● Contributing to the web platform

Researchers are interested in finding alliances with other

researchers through the platform, as equally as they are

interested in promoting their research to a policymaking

audience

● Emphasising human connections

Researchers felt very strongly that the platform should be an

enabler of off-line human connection, not simply an end in

itself.

● Closing feedback loops

Researchers are particularly concerned about the need for a

‘feedback loop’ - to know if, how and why their work has

influenced policy. This is a challenging issue to address, and

shows a degree of naivety about how the policymaking process

takes place

● Upskilling in communicating to policy audiences

Researchers identify a significant skills gap in their community

around communicating with policy audiences. They see a role

for the JRC in helping upskill.

7

Executive summary Summary findings about policymakers

● Current ways of finding information

Policymakers express concern that they cannot find the

information they need, but do not tend to go outside of their

current networks or traditional channels to source that

information.

● Types of knowledge preferred

Policymakers express preference for detailed reports in this

survey, which contradicts a wish for well-curated summary

documents in focus groups and interviews. We believe that the

interviews show the true preference for more senior

policymakers, as ethnographic interviews focused on how

policymakers actually behave, rather than on their reported

behaviours. The survey may also reflects a genuine need for

evidence to be robust, and trustworthy.

● Likely to be passive

Whilst junior advisors to senior politicians will search through

different kinds of information, many policymakers will expect

tailored information to land in their inbox in order for them to

engage with evidence.

● The need to be cautious

Policymakers need to be cautious around explaining publicly

how and why they have used particular pieces of evidence, or

not. The political process necessitates judgements to be made

about which evidence to follow, or when to not follow the

evidence at all.

● Find an expert

Senior policymakers see value in being connected with an

expert or experts on a particular topic that is of interest to

them at that moment.

Policymakers will come to the platform if the information is relevant to them,

and they trust its source. However, they are unlikely to be active contributors,

owing to rules and practices about open engagement and interaction. There is

also an important distinction between those who decide policy and those who

provide advice, the latter of whom would be more likely to engage in open

features, and will often be the people actually sourcing knowledge.

8

The evidence gathered through the research has led to

this report advising a strategy that is based on two

primary findings:

● Policymakers will visit the web platform if the quality of research

experts are contributing is high enough, trustworthy, and the

external communication from the web platform matches their

rhythms and priorities.

● Researchers will engage on the web platform if there is

demonstrable added value to their work as researchers, as well as

in communicating with policymakers.

These two findings lead to a strategy that:

● Prioritises the needs of policymakers in terms of how the

knowledge is curated and presented externally to match their

rhythms, and ensure that the content is relevant, useful and

usable.

● Prioritises the needs of researchers in terms of features

and functions to create an environment where they are able to

engage and share with each other openly.

Moreover, evidence from interviews and focus groups has shown that the

two worlds of policymaking and research are too far apart for a digital web

platform, on its own, to bridge the gap. There is strong requirement,

therefore, for:

● Community management - a form of curation and translation

that will make knowledge relevant and usable for the world of

policy; and

● Offline interaction - the web platform should enable and

encourage offline interaction as one of its primary goals.

Executive summary

Recommended strategy

9

Prioritise the needs of policymakers in terms of how the

knowledge is curated and presented externally to match

their rhythms, and ensure that the content is relevant and

useful to them.

Prioritise the needs of researchers in terms of

features and functions to create an

environment where they are able to engage

and share with each other openly.

Provide community management

and offline interactions to bridge the

gap between the two communities.

Executive summary

Recommended strategy

10

This research has led to the development of a broad

segmentation of potential web platform users.

Through analysis of interview data and focus groups, two

important characteristics of potential users emerged, which

have been used to develop the segmentation.

One is a particular behaviour in relation to the web platform,

and the other is a personal characteristic, which the evidence

tells us will affect how that individual would interact with the

web platform, and with other web platform users.

Across all audience classes - and within policymakers and researchers -

there is an important distinction made between those who are senior

and highly expert, and those who are not. They process knowledge and

information differently, they use knowledge in different ways, and their

reputations on the web platform would have significant impact on how

valuable their input and presence is perceived to be by others.

There will be different user journeys through the web platform. Some users

will actively upload and share information. Others will simply download

documents, or read the newspage, and process knowledge offline. Some

will expect content to come to them through newsletters, and may rarely

visit the web platform itself. This behavioural characteristic is an important

differentiator between users, and will help us understand how the web

platform can respond to different needs across varied users.

Level of seniority and expertise 1.

Degree of proactive sharing on the web platform 2.

Executive summary

Audience segmentation

11

This segmentation model can be used

as a tool to understand the needs of

different audience groups on the web

platform.

Both policymakers and

researchers can occupy all four

quadrants.

However, generally speaking, it is

more likely that policymakers will be

within quadrants 1 and 3, whilst

researchers will be within quadrants 2

and 4.

.

Executive summary

Audience segmentation

12

The decision maker primarily uses and shares

knowledge and is likely to be a senior policymaker in

the Commission, or the European Parliament. They will come

to the web platform to read short briefings or news items, to

quickly verify what they know, or source a expert to speak at

their event.

“ I wouldn't ever have data or anything I could contribute to the web platform or time to engage with it, information needs to come to me when I need it...

Executive summary

Audience segmentation: The decision maker persona

Scenario:

The decision maker is delivering a speech in three weeks

from now and they have tasked their team with briefing

them on the key debates around the issue. They’d like to

know the headlines about the topic.

They’ve heard about the Knowledge for Policy web platform at an

event run by the JRC and think it might be helpful. They reach out

to the Knowledge for Policy community managers to find out if

there’s anything relevant to that topic. They’re sent a short,

informative digest of the latest thought pieces and headlines from

debates as well the a list of top experts in the area and how to

reach them for further information. They get their team to reach

out to the relevant experts using the researcher directory function

so they can get the latest on the topic.

13

Highlights/latest news (policy focused). Highlights or latest research

curated to be relevant to a policy audience. Presented in ways that makes it

quick to digest (e.g short summary briefings or summary infographics). These

highlights should not only be visible on the web platform’s homepage but also

pushed out directly through informative newsletters or other communications.

Web platform features and content to prioritise for this segment:

Topic-themed thought pieces (policy focused). More in-depth content,

carefully created/curated by communications team. Including thought pieces,

analysis, summaries of various top researchers’ views on certain topics, etc.

Themed based on subject matter that is currently relevant to policy.

Prioritise the needs of policymakers in terms of

how the knowledge is curated and presented

externally to match their rhythms, and ensure

that the content is relevant, useful and usable to

them.

Researcher directory (“Find/Ask an Expert”). Database of experts

with the option to very quickly search for and find the relevant experts.

Short profiles tagged according to locations, topics and detailed specialities to

allow for accurate searching. Potentially a facilitated “Find/Ask an Expert”

service offered by the community management team (e.g matching

researcher/s to policymakers).

Legislative focused interface (aligned to policy timelines). Legislative

interface for the web platform which allows members to see both the legislative

timelines as well as the projects and communities currently developing content

in research.

Executive summary

Recommended features and content: The decision makers

14

The expert primarily creates and shares knowledge, and

is a senior academic or topic specialist who produces leading

knowledge that can be useful to policymakers across the EU.

They are recognised by their peers for their quality and

positive reputation, and could work inside a university,

for an NGO, or for another agency. They are fairly proactive

and likely to engage with the platform if it helps them meet

their needs.

“ I will reach out to my own connections in other fields and ask them things - e.g. ‘What are you doing with drones?’ - so I can better understand how it might be applied to my projects...

Scenario:

The expert is working on a research project proposal and

needs to explore who might be doing work on a similar

topic and what their findings have been. They would also

find it useful to better understand how their work might

be relevant in a policy context as they’d like to increase

their profile in the EU space.

They already have a profile on the Knowledge for Policy web

platform, and know this is a good starting point for exploring

other projects and people working on the topic. Using the

researcher directory and tagged profiles they’re able to see just

how many people are working on a similar topic area, in a

particular geographic area, and reach out to them directly.

They’ve also received communications from the Knowledge for

Policy community managers on topics that are currently

particularly policy relevant. Therefore they update their profile

adding a short paragraph on their expertise in the area, as well as

key words, so that anyone searching can easily find them and

get in touch.

Executive summary

Audience segmentation: The expert persona

15

Web platform features to prioritise for this segment: Prioritise the needs of researchers in terms of

features and functions that creates an

environment where they are able to engage and

share with each other openly.

Highlights/latest news (researcher focused). Highlights or latest research

curated to be relevant to an expert audience. These highlights should both be

at the homepage on the web platform and allow for easy navigation either

across content (i.e for those who want to look across topics) as well as those

who very quickly want to access more specific information.

Topic-themed thought pieces (researcher focused). More in-depth

content, carefully created/curated by communications team. Including thought

pieces, analysis, and summaries of various research projects. Themed based on

topical subjects, highlighting different countries’ approaches etc.

Content submission. Option to add content (written to appeal to policy

audience - i.e. short, summarised content). Linked to personal/organisational

profiles. Submission guidelines in presenting information. Support from

community management team in preparing information for policy audience

(e.g through training sessions, particularly in presenting data, as well as

communications and guidelines to ensure researchers are submitting content

according to policy timelines).

Executive summary

Recommended features and content: The experts

16

Web platform features to prioritise for this segment:

Personal profile. Simple profiles that are searchable through researcher

directory. As much as possible fields should be easy to update, pre-populated

from other widely used web platforms (e.g Research Gate and LinkedIn) and

allow for others to get in touch. Researchers should be prompted to complete

profiles. Profiles might highlight things in common (e.g. topic area) and

researchers might receive updates on other researchers who are new to the

web platform and might be relevant.

Organisational profile. Simple organisational profile to enable researchers to

affiliate themselves to an organisation and build trust. Profiles should focus on

highlighting the work produced by the organisation. Search functionality should

allow for detailed searching through projects and communications/community

management should highlight those working on similar topics.

Researcher directory (“Find/Ask an Expert”). Option to join database of

experts as well as quickly search for and find and connect with others relevant

to their work. Short profiles tagged according to locations, topics and detailed

specialities to allow for accurate searching.

Granular search. Ability to search for people, their projects and experience, as

well as through available content based on detailed search criteria (e.g location,

topics, keywords).

Guidance on sharing with policy audience. Best practice, guidelines and

training for sharing research with policy audience. Overview of policy landscape

and timelines and ways of navigating policy landscape (e.g overviews of

organisations and departments, interactive mapping of landscape, or training).

Executive summary

Recommended features and content: The experts

17

“ It's not the senior people looking at the data, it's us as advisors who are researching and finding things for them…

The advisor primarily finds and uses knowledge and works

as part of the team that advises senior decision makers in

governments and parliaments. They provide advice to their

employer, help source information and expertise, and write

speeches. While interested in finding new sources of

information and data, they’re under time pressure and need

quick access to credible sources and the right people to

speak to.

Scenario:

The advisor is working on preparing a speech for his

more senior colleague. They’re under time pressure to find

information that is relevant and don’t have time to search

through many different sources, or get up to speed on the

latest technical terms or data, related to a new subject

matter.


event run by the JRC and think it might be helpful. The access the

researcher directory and search for the few key words they think

might point them in the direction of someone who can help.

They’re able to read short bios about each person, see their areas

of focus and short summaries of key research. Signing up to the

platform, they’re now able to create a closed working group, add

relevant people and ask them questions directly to quickly inform

their speech writing.

Executive summary

Recommended features and content: The advisors

18



externally to match their rhythms and ensure that

the content is relevant, useful and usable to

them.











Legislative-focused interface (aligned to policy timelines). Legislative


timelines as well as the projects and communities currently developing

content in research.

Executive summary


19

Reports or content (with policy-focused summary information).

Access to more detailed reports or content with ability to reach out to relevant

experts in order to be able to ask questions, understand wider context behind

research or request other relevant information.

Data visualisation and infographics.

Infographic-style data visualisation that allows for easier understanding of

research or providing a summary before accessing more in-depth content. Data

visualisation in more interactive style, where nature of research lends itself to

needing to see or compare long-term trends, patterns, etc.

Glossary. Technical terms presented in user-friendly way (e.g easily accessible

when reading content that needs explanation without navigating away from

content).

Closed working groups. Ability to form groups with relevant experts to work

on addressing a particular challenge or question. Groups need to be closed and

not publically viewable. Groups should be simple to set up and use, linking out

or making use of existing and widely used collaboration tools where possible.

Organisational profile. Simple organisational profile to enable policymakers

to interact on behalf of their organisation where needed (e.g convening task

group around specific issues).


Researcher directory (“Find/Ask an Expert”) Database of experts with the

option to very quickly search for and find the relevant experts. Short profiles

tagged according to locations, topics and detailed specialities to allow for

accurate searching. Potentially a facilitated “Find/Ask an Expert” service offered

by the community management team (e.g matching researcher/s to

policymakers).

Executive summary


20

Section 1

Methodology and

research questions

21

The European Commission’s science and knowledge service - the Joint

Research Centre - is in the process of creating a single online web platform

for its knowledge services. The two types of knowledge service (KS) are:

To inform the design of this new web platform, the JRC commissioned

Lisbon Council and Uscreates to undertake a piece of audience research with

the following aims:

● To understand how key audiences interact with knowledge

and incorporate it into their work.

● To understand how a digital web platform could support some of

these practices and needs; and

● To engage knowledge services and their audiences in the

iterative process of the web platform’s design; and by that

● Supporting web platform development in the post-launch phase.

Knowledge Centres 1.

Competence Centres 2.

1.1 Research aims

1. Methodology

22

Desk research

Desk research conducted provided us with a project baseline through

familiarisation with current JRC strategies, audiences and existing data.

It enabled us to identify key issues to explore through the audience

research and develop the audience segmentation used to guide

recruitment throughout the project.

The following selection criteria was used to guide the research and

recruitment:

● (1) Policymakers (2) Experts within government

(3) Experts within academia (4) Other experts

● (5) Social sciences (6) Natural sciences and

(7) Economics and analysis topic areas

● (8) National (9) EU and (10) International levels

The audience research, conducted between December 2017 - April 2018,

gathered input from over 325 people across science and policy fields in

the European Union.

Research and analysis was iterative throughout the project, building on

emerging findings and exploring new questions through four different

research methods, selected to give us both breadth and depth of insight:

Desk research 1.

Ethnographies and interviews 2.

Survey 3.

Focus groups 4.

1.2 Methods of engagement

1. Methodology

23

Ethnographies and interviews

Ethnographies and interviews were conducted with 12 individuals selected

to ensure a maximum variation sample across the criteria outlined above.

In-depth ethnographies (60-180 min) in interviewees’ places of work

enabled us to see first-hand how they access, use, and share knowledge in

relation to their work. Shorter interviews (60 min) in person or via Skype

were conducted where interviewees’ time was limited.

Survey

A survey helped to develop a quantitative picture of audience needs and

preferences. Building on insights from interviews and desk research, the

survey was designed and then distributed to over 260 people in science

and policy fields.

Focus groups

Three focus groups were held in order to gather further insight and

test emerging insights:

● Structured focus group with scientists, researchers

and other academics at the Bio-Step.eu conference.

● Drop-in session with policymakers at the European

Parliament.

● Structured focus group with policymakers at the

Residence Palace.

1.2 Methods of engagement

1. Methodology

http://www.bio-step.eu/



24

Questions in the survey

In order to understand what kind of platform participant each survey

respondent was, each was asked the following question:

Q: I spend most of my time… Please choose the most appropriate option(s) to describe your work: [Multiple choice*]

a. Creating scientific knowledge (scientist, researchers, other academic…)

b. Developing policy within government (analyses, drawing up options, etc.)

c. Influencing public policy (NGOs, industry associations, think tanks, civil society, etc.)

d. Deciding public policy (policymakers)

The answer to this question was then used to map survey responses against

the audience segmentation (section 3.2).

Those who answered (a) were segmented as the “Experts”

Those who answered (b) and (c) were segmented as “Advisors”

Those who answered (d) were segmented as “Decision makers”.

Segmentation approach

Segmentation of audiences in this way is not a quantitative exercise -

it is a mechanism for effectively understanding the characteristics and

preferences of different audiences that enables development teams to

design work to meet users needs. It also allows for strategic decision

making when deciding whose needs to prioritise above others. There is

more detail on this approach in Section 3.2.

This report groups findings according to two communities:

● The research community

● The policymaking community

These two groups are not audience segments, rather, they are the

kinds of people who are likely to use the platform, and could occupy

different segments. The segments used in this report are:

● The decision makers

● The advisors

● The experts

● The junior researchers (who are excluded from the

recommendation strategy)

1.3 Segmentation of survey respondents

1. Methodology

25

The survey vs. the interviews

The survey data that formed part of this piece of work frequently showed up

contradictory findings from qualitative data gathered via the interviews and

focus groups / drop in session. In addition, the strength of opinion

expressed during interviews about likely platform features and functions was

not matched by the survey data, which shows much less variation between

audience types. Some examples of this contradiction are highlighted in this

paper.

Where there is clear contradiction, the research team have judged data from

interviews and focus groups to be more robust than that of the survey,

because:

● A kind of social acceptability bias is likely to have driven certain

audience groups (particularly policymakers) to declare greater

enthusiasm for functions and features of the platform than was

clearly the case when engaging with them in a more unstructured

environment, or when able to ask follow-up questions or probe

opinion in focus groups.

● We can be more confident that the opinions and preferences of

those in focus groups and interviews were representative of

that kind of platform participant, because we know their

specific job title, and place of work. This is not the case with

survey respondents, who answered anonymously, and whose

answers were segmented according to how they engaged with

knowledge.

● Survey answer options were worded in such a way that may

have encouraged participants to show greater preference for

platform features than they would in fact have shown in

practice.

● Ethnographic-style interviews allow those carrying out the

research to understand what people actually do in reality

(through observation) - the survey answers mainly tell us

what potential users of the website report they might do.

1.4 Limitations of the methodology

1. Methodology

26

Section 2

Findings

27

2. Findings

The following pages in Section 2.1 capture the overarching

themes, potential challenges and opportunities that emerged

from the research in relation to the JRC and knowledge sharing

through the web platform. Section 2.2

and 2.3 introduce more specific findings related to the needs and

preferences from the policymaking and research communities.

Findings for these two communities are colour coded as follows:

Yellow: The research community

Blue: The policymaking community

Quotations in this section are taken interviews unless otherwise

stated. Insights are triangulated from all three sources - interviews,

the survey, and the focus groups.

Each section concludes with a set of considerations or

design principles based on these findings, which should

be carried forward into the design of the web platform and

supporting activities.

Overarching findings 2.1

Overarching findings: Design principles 2.1.1

Researcher-specific findings 2.2

Researcher-specific findings: Design principles 2.2.1

Policymaker-specific findings 2.3

Policymaker-specific findings: Design principles 2.3.1

Please note: Segmentation groups do not map exclusively onto

the two communities discussed here, although there are some

commonalities, as discussed in Section 3.2

28

Section 2.1

Overarching

findings

29

Continuous work is also needed to improve the perception of how useful

the JRC is and through this increase interaction with the web platform.

The following areas of value that JRC might offer emerged from

the research and could provide overall direction for the web platform

as well as wider work.

High profile and access to networks

JRC is perceived as a very desirable and high-profile stakeholder to partner

with and this has the potential to draw researchers to the web platform.

Access to the networks JRC currently gather - and could potentially gather in

future - is one of the frequently mentioned reasons for potentially engaging

with the web platform. This should be leveraged to increase traffic to the

web platform.

Perceived value of JRC and the web platform

While both the research and policymaker audiences recognised the value

in bridging the two communities, the idea of "yet another web platform” was

met with caution. There was however recognition of the potential value that

the JRC might bring to this web platform through leveraging their networks,

reputation and expertise (and, in this way, differentiating the web platform

from other web platforms and websites).

2. Findings

2.1 Overarching findings

“ My first thought was...another web platform?!

“ I think it is a good idea as a public initiative but it should have a different focus [from other web platforms]... Somehow make it a web platform that is more reflexive on science itself and doesn’t just reproduce existing models for knowledge sharing…

“ If I had a question I would not go to JRC site...

“ We are very keen in learning and engaging with them and through them having access to a much larger network...

30

Providing an overview

Another area of value is JRC’s ability to provide “an overview of what's

happening”, working as a connector and coordinator between the research

and policy fields, as well as between various research areas, initiatives and

communities. The JRC could play a valuable role in this process, which the

web platform would also help to facilitate.

Potential value was also seen by some in the knowledge services having

more of a central “hub” and through this improving awareness of other

knowledge services and what they offer, as well as facilitating innovation

and partnerships and enabling work on shared challenges.

“ Sometimes what happens is fragmentation of initiatives and communities. We need less fragmentation, more coordination across all these initiatives, this might be a JRC role...

Independent analysis

It would be of value if the JRC and web platform could provide independent

analysis and interpretation of data and content, both offering support to

researchers in terms of interpreting and presenting data, as well as

presenting critical and independent analysis on various relevant subjects to

policymakers (e.g. thought pieces or summaries of the debates on various

topics).

“ Interpretation or analysis is something JRC might provide that would make it valuable to interact with this platform...

“ There's need for an integrated view on knowledge centers and their possible interdependencies in tackling complex societal challenges...

“ Before it might have been one way direction (scientists produce knowledge, policymakers use it) whereas innovation nowadays lies in new forms of co-creation as means to ensure that knowledge is useful...

2. Findings

2.1 Overarching findings

31

Providing credibility and curation

Credible and trustworthy data and content is seen as crucial to the success

of the web platform. Ensuring this content is credible and well curated is a

role for the JRC to help fulfill. Along with curating content there is also a role

related to ensuring data and content is standardised and of the right quality.

Speaking different languages

Building relationships between researchers and policymakers is important;

however, one of challenges presented relates to the different “languages”

being spoken both by policymakers and researchers and by different

research fields. Addressing this through the web platform could prove

challenging and needs consideration.

“ To have all information grouped in one place is useful but isn’t enough to make you browse through it. But having offline opportunities to meet with those people, this combination works...

2. Findings 2.1 Overarching findings

Community management

An essential role for the JRC to play concerns community management and

translation between different groups and across topics, both on the web

platform (e.g. getting members to interact, sending reminders) as well as

offline (e.g. through events, networks and meetups). This combination of

online and offline interaction is seen as an essential ingredient for the

web platform to be successful.

“ Language is a big issue – what is really needed for this [web platform] to be successful is translation across groups...

“ There's a need for a semantic exercise for understanding that

we're often talking about the same subjects just giving

different names...

“ An organisation like the JRC can make sure countries are collecting data in consistent way, rather than people reinventing the wheel...

“ Credibility of the source is the most crucial thing!

32

Varying timelines

The differing yearly timelines and production cycles for policymakers and

researchers needs consideration. Researchers are often working on long-

term projects and policymakers are working around more immediate

legislative timetables. This presents a challenge as to how the web platform

speaks to these varying time frames.

Lack of sharing culture

One of the issues related to successful use of the web platform relates to

the sharing culture in the research space being different to the policy-

making space, with researchers generally being open to sharing information

in the public domain, and the majority of policymakers unable, or unwilling,

to actively share in the public domain. There is also a wider theme related to

the perceived lack of a sharing culture at an EU level.

“ EC is a competitive arena, sometimes there isn't a sharing

culture...Sharing of information even across/within projects

sometimes doesn’t happen...

“ People aren’t open to share their contacts so I’m doubtful if

people would share them in this space. But maybe JRC can

help with this...


33


Answer by the research community

Survey findings:

When asked which features they would prioritise in the survey, and

looked at as whole communities, both researchers and policymakers

wanted to prioritise community features (allowing platform members to

share content) above advanced search and data visualisations. This was

surprising as interview data had been very strong in indicating that

particularly senior policymakers would not like to share knowledge

openly on the platform. However, when taking out those on the survey

who said they primarily “decide public policy”, the most preferred option

was advanced search. This shows the need to differentiate need

according to seniority of policymaker and supports findings from the

interviews.

Q: Where should we focus our resources? Please rank your priority

34


Answer by those who consider themselves as advising or influencing policy

Answer by those who consider themselves to decide public policy.

35

2.1 Findings

Provide online and offline ways of accessing new networks through JRC

1.

Use the platform to provide an overview of both research and policy landscapes 2.

Provide independent analysis and thought pieces

3.

The following principles have been based on the research findings on the previous

pages and should be used to guide the design of the web platform and supporting

content and offline activities.

2.1.1 Overarching findings: Design principles

Introduce ways of translating across the research and policymaker communities 5.

Provide community management 6.

Curate content around researcher and policymaker timelines

7.

Ensure any content and data is credible and well curated 4.

Build wider culture of sharing through wider JRC work. 8.

36

Section 2.2

Researcher-

specific findings

37

2. Findings

2.2 Researcher-specific findings

Current ways of finding information

When seeking new information or evidence to inform a decision, researchers

are most likely to consult traditional sources such as books, journals and

other printed sources. Alternatively, they may browse websites or online

resources, usually via a generic search engine. Blogs, online communities

and social media are not consistently used as sources of information,

however groups who more proactively seek out information and

connections, using social media like Twitter as a way of finding relevant

information and particularly useful for being able to directly reach out to the

person.

“ “Twitter is great, it helps me find interesting articles, gives me references and contacts to use in my work. That combination of having the information, but also being able to reach out directly to the source is what works…”

Needs related to time of the year

Researchers often have different needs at different points in their process

(e.g. production cycles in their year). For example, when creating new

outputs, researchers might be more likely to seek out new and different

resources; at other times they rely on go-to sources. In order to be

successful the web platform should look to address or align with specific

pain points in their yearly rhythm.

“ When we go into production mode, our needs are more related to a question needing answered, for example when something isn’t working from statistical perspective, then a way to interact with a group and ask technical questions, would be more of value….

38

Specific vs. general content interest

When finding new information, there’s a tension between groups of

researchers who value being able to access highly specific knowledge

(e.g. related to a very specific subject matter or methodological process)

and those that value access to broader topics or a cross-section of them

(e.g. those developing innovation projects across sectors or wanting to

develop new skills and be aware of what other fields are working on).

2. Findings


For those looking for highly specific knowledge, not only is there interest

in ways of quickly navigating to that information, but also being able to

ask questions directly to those who might have the answers.

Those that seek broader content understand the advantages of being able to

learn from other fields, topics and people, and see this as a big potential

value add of the web platform.

“ I’m only interested in very specific sections of the knowledge services’ work, I’m never ever going to be interested in everything JRC do. If the focus is to incorporate everything they do, it’s just too much….

“ The more horizontal and trans-sector the web platform is the more useful it will be...

“ Nowadays, for example, EU is pushing new information technology in my industry. As such, we need to know what’s happening across sectors...

“ In the past we had tunnel vision on topics. Now we have

to be broader. Anything that can help us with this is useful...

39

Navigating existing research projects

Researchers expressed a strong interest in learning from other research

projects, and finding ways to quickly navigate all the relevant work related

to a specific topic. There was also interest in being able to better understand

current occurrences within specific research areas at country and EU levels.

While websites like the Horizon 2020 or other research web platforms were

cited as useful for developing an overview, a gap was still seen in terms of

having a comprehensive picture of research activity. In particular, it was felt

that access and ease of use was an issue: researchers pinpointed the

necessity of being able to easily navigate to the institution and person

behind projects, and reach out to them directly.

Alongside this was also interest in not only being aware of what research

projects are underway, but learning and sharing across countries and topics.

“ At a country-wide level, countries want to know what other countries are working on - e.g. what are Denmark doing related to ‘Greenhouse Gas in Agriculture’?

Understanding the policy landscape

Researchers often find it hard to fully understand policy departmental

structures, as well as which policies are being issued at national and EU

levels, and how their work might be relevant to these. For researchers,

any way in which the web platform can help them better understand and

explore the policy landscape, timetables and needs, would be a value add.

A legislative interface for the web platform which allows members to see

both the relevant legislative timelines and the related research that

is being developed - or having content arranged according to the profile of

the user - were views on how the platform might support easier navigation.

“ It’s a project in itself to understand who is working in this space. All these projects are actually funded by EC, understanding who is working [at] EU level on a topic is critical!

“ That combination (of projects and institutions) would be amazing! You need to see the institutional profile behind things - including size, research areas, location, their budget. etc...

“ Before designing thematic communities you might consider arranging the landing page according to the profile of the user - e.g. ‘You are from....EU institution, international organisation, National Ministry, research organisation, HEI, company, NGO, media…’

2. Findings


40

2. Findings


Contributing to the web platform

Although researchers did feel that submitting knowledge to yet another

platform was time consuming, this was considered to be a likely way of

contributing their knowledge to the web platform because of the opportunity

to increase the visibility of their work at an EU level. Almost all researchers

highly valued their work being “taken up” by policymakers, and if the web

platform easily allowed them to engage with this audience, there was clear

value in taking the time to contribute. However many expressed that

training, guidelines or best-practice examples on how to share with these

policy audiences was needed in order for them to do so effectively.

“ I want to create a space for myself and my organisation in the EU ecosystem...

Another consideration in terms of contributing knowledge was that

researchers placed high value on knowing how their knowledge was to be

used, both by other researchers and policymakers. Other ways researchers

thought they might contribute was by suggesting ideas for conferences

and workshops, or using online tools to share ideas, ask questions

or work with other members.

While researchers did see the value in highlighting their organisation’s work,

the majority thought traditional personal or organisational profiles would not

be actively used because of the time-intensive nature of continually updating

them, and this platform might then be in danger of being “yet another place

with half complete profiles”. Some suggested that ways of streamlining this

process would increase the likelihood of it actively being used; for example,

pulling in data from existing online profiles (e.g. LinkedIn or Research Gate),

and having automatic reminders for people to update their profiles.

“ You need someone in contact with you, reminders to complete things or have this done automatically, otherwise it’s not ever going to work...

41

2. Findings


Collaborating through the web platform

Surprisingly, only 63% of researchers who responded to the survey are

members of communities of practice / groups for their work. This is in

contradiction to the interview participants, all of whom had some kind of

community membership (either online or offline). There is particular interest

in finding alliances through the web platform, particularly at an EU level;

and with researchers at ease with collaborating - or willing to learn how to

collaborate - through webinars or by joining online working groups or

communities, there is potential for using work groups as a way to facilitate

this. It was thought that in order for any working groups to be successful

they’d need to be structured around clear goals, and they should make use

of existing collaboration tools.

Many researchers already contribute to online communities already,

although 63% of researchers who contributed to our survey, and also are in

online communities, said that insufficient time to contribute was the main

problem with participating.

“ It’s about creating place for people to find a common objective (e.g that objective might be to create a project, develop a policy) otherwise they just won’t meet...

Although researchers said they were least likely to contribute to the web

platform through personal or organisational profiles, there was a feeling that

if there was a comprehensive list or directory of researchers, it would be a

useful starting point for establishing working connections amongst

researchers. As part of this directory of researchers, the ability to search for

people based on topics or projects, being able to connect directly with

people, and potentially be automatically connected with relevant people

through a matching system would be useful.

“ Portugal might want to know how Norway dealt with an issue, how did they find that information? Being able to get in touch with someone directly to ask them about this would be useful...

“ The most valuable thing the web platform might offer is connecting to people, although Research Gate already exists, so what makes this different? Being able to connect to policymakers?

42

Emphasising human connections

The majority of researchers involved in this study make use of either face-

to-face or online communities or groups related to their work and could see

value in the web platform supporting people sharing results and connecting

in a proactive way. An important point for researchers is that

the “human dimension” of the web platform is emphasised. Rather than a

web platform that purely provides access to information, it should be a place

for “boosting face-to-face connections”.

However the caveat around this is that the favoured way of building these

connections is through traditional face-to-face events, networking and

meetings; and while these activities were seen as valuable, insufficient time

was the primary reason for researchers not getting involved.

“ The web platform should emphasise the human connections, above a repository type feel...

Closing feedback loops

Researchers expressed a strong interest in hearing feedback on how

their work was being used by policymakers. There was also a need

expressed for this feedback loop - in terms of how work has been used

- to be strengthened between researchers.

However this is potentially problematic, with policymakers generally feeling

that they would be reluctant or unable to provide feedback on how research

has been used (particularly closer to legislation point, as research becomes

more processed and it becomes more difficult to be open and track the

connection between evidence and policy).

“ The problem is with continuity. We share stuff, people find it interesting. But then what...?

“ If I reach out to [another researcher] to use their knowledge, I always explain what I’m going to use it for...

“ I might have already seen the content, but I go [to events] because I want the evaluation of the information, to hear their assessment or spin on the information...

2. Findings


43

2. Findings


Upskilling in communicating to policy audiences

While more than 95% of the researchers involved in the research agreed

or very strongly agreed that it was very important that the scientific work

they do is “taken up” by policymakers, many felt they lacked knowledge

regarding how to reach policy audiences and successfully engage

with them. Sharing knowledge on how to reach these audiences is seen

as something that the JRC currently do that is of high value, as well

as something that would draw researchers to the web platform.

Need for training, courses and other support - specifically in an offline

context - is considered crucial in bridging the gap. There is also specific

interest in training and upskilling in presenting data for policy audiences.

Along with ways of JRC providing this support, there is also knowledge

within the research community and opportunity for peer-led support

and sharing.

“ We don’t really know what the formula is to successfully share our work with these audiences…

“ Doing consultancy has helped us understand the decision-making processes that are involved and how information is selected – that’s helped us share our work in more suitable ways...

According to the survey, 50% of researcher respondents will publish their

results via the usual scientific channels as a way of trying to reach

policymakers. This indicates a degree of immaturity in the community

around how to effectively ensure their research has impact in the policy

sphere.

44

2. Findings


Survey findings:

It is not surprising that researchers value detailed

studies and reports. Compared to policymakers (pg

50), they are much more comfortable using online

material (both training and websites), and will be

more willing to engage in projects or knowledge-

producing activities. This broadly mirrors findings in

focus groups and interviews.

Detailed studies

Detailed studies, reports, papers, etc

Online resources “useful websites”

Datasets

Data visualisations

Online training material (MOOCs, etc.)

Projects and other knowledge-producing activities

News

Events

Glossary

Organisation profiles

People profiles

Audio visual

Brochure, leaflet

Other

Q: The platform aims to organise many different types of policy-relevant knowledge. Which are most valuable to you?

45

2. Findings

Survey findings:

Researchers report being highly likely to submit their

research to the platform, and to actively engage.

Interestingly, over 40% would be unlikely to publish a

personal profile about themselves, and would prefer

to publish about their organisation. This is interesting

to consider alongside policymakers’ demands to be

matched up with one individual expert (see

recommendations).

Detailed studies

Q: How likely are you to…?

Publish a public ‘Organisation profile’ about my organisation

Use online tools to share ideas, ask questions, work with other members, etc

Submit knowledge of any type (see above) to the Platform

Suggest ideas for conferences and workshop

Publish a public ‘personal profile’ about myself


46

2. Findings

Survey findings:

Researchers show willingness to engage in lots of

different ways on the platform. This was reflected in

the interviews and focus groups. It also makes sense

that answering online polls (something that takes little

time) is at the top of the list, as lack of time was the

primary barrier to people engaging in online

communities. It is interesting that commenting has

the highest number of “don’t want to use”.

Detailed studies

Q: If you would like to share ideas, ask questions, work together with other Members, which online tools are you most comfortable using?

Answer online polls, surveys, consultations

Join online working groups or committees

Join webinars and other online video conferences

Submit questions, answers and opinions to online forums

Use wikis and other groupware documents

Use other online collaboration tools

Comment on any piece of online content

Share your ideas via a blog post


47

2. Findings

Align with researchers’ timelines and priorities

1.

Introduce ways of looking across topics as well as in-depth at one topic

2.

Build in ways of navigating existing research projects as well as the policy landscape

3.




2.2.1 Researcher-specific findings: Design principles

Introduce ways of working in closed groups, around shared goals, using familiar tools 5.

Emphasise human connections above a repository feel, include easy ways of reaching out directly to people to ask questions

6.

Build in ways of closing feedback loops where possible

7.

Provide easy-to-update profiles and ways of sharing work in the EU-level ecosystem

4.

Provide upskilling in communicating with policy audiences and in data visualisation.

8.

48

Section 2.3

Policymaker-

specific findings

49

Current ways of finding information

57% of policymakers say that they can easily find the scientific information

they need for policy, and 43% say that they cannot. Survey data also shows

that when seeking new information or evidence to inform a decision, those

in more junior or advisory policy roles are most likely to find this through

existing organisational networks or partnerships, or specialised online

databases (intranets, public, subscription-based) or websites. This was

backed up by focus group evidence. Those in more senior roles are more

likely to do this through organisational networks or directly through

colleagues in advisory roles. While these personal networks of individuals

are a primary source of evidence when making decisions, this does not

necessarily produce good policy; however, those networks are available

quickly and are trustworthy. Events or conferences are occasionally sources

of information when not under time pressure.

Types of knowledge preferred

Policymakers in both advisory and more senior levels expressed that the

most useful types of knowledge were traditional detailed studies, reports or

papers. However, the seniority of the policymaker affects how they will

engage with these reports.

Senior policymakers will always rely on processed information (either by

their own team or by others, including lobbyists and consultancies); only

those who are supporting them might have time for longer and more in-

depth publications and data. Only at less senior levels is “inspirational”

research potentially valuable - and then only at certain points in the policy-

making process.

Policymakers are unlikely to actively seek out content on the web platform,

and in order for it to be used it needs to be pushed directly to them through

newsletters, briefings and other mediums that align with their timetables.

2. Findings

2.3 Policymaker-specific findings

“ Speaking to colleagues is just easiest when you’re under time pressure...I’m not going to go to a website...

“ It needs to come directly to be in my inbox, I’m not going to go out to find it, especially when we’re under time pressure. And much of our work is time sensitive...

“ You have to have balance between routine information finding (for speed) and changing it up (for variety and new thinking) but you only do this when you aren’t under pressure...

50

While news and online training functionality were of more use to those at

decision-making level, online resources, datasets and data visualisation

were of most value to those at advisory level.

In terms of datasets and data visualisations, it is crucial that there are

standards in place to ensure they are reliable, either through peer review

or ideally through moderation by the JRC. Many felt that data sets were

not enough, and that in order for data to be useful and for them to engage

with it, there needed to be analysis.

It is important to note that it is only those at advisor level who are likely to

engage with data visualisations, and that there is nuance in terms of the

type of data visualisation policymakers thought to be most useful; while

those at advisor level might engage with interactive data visualisations, in

general access to concise infographic style information was thought to

be most useful for senior policymakers.

“ The problem is so much data, and very little intelligence… Having things already analysed is useful...

2. Findings


Contributing to the web platform

Overall policymakers and advisors are unlikely to actively contribute to the

platform or submit any knowledge. If they do it’s likely to be information

about what knowledge, or which people they are seeking in order to address

their questions. Those at lower seniority levels might contribute in other

light-touch ways, such as: contributing an organisational profile; using

online tools to share ideas; asking questions; working with other members;

or suggesting ideas for conferences and workshops. At all levels there is

particular appetite for ways of submitting questions quickly and receiving

direct answers or feedback. It is interesting that survey respondents in this

category are more likely to be members of groups than researchers (77%

compared to 63%). However, this group has strong presence on linkedin,

and their presence / membership does not necessarily mean that they will

actively contribute or participate. As with researchers, insufficient time is a

barrier to taking part, although more of this group are worried about

privacy.

“ It’s pretty much always internal work that we do. We can add some knowledge from the public domain, but we need to be a bit cautious there...

51

2. Findings


Collaborating through the web platform

While overall the community ambition of the web platform is problematic for

both senior policymakers and advisor groups, as are any public declarations

of viewpoints, work plans, or indeed the specific use of research,

policymakers did express interest in online working groups or communities

as they help with direct access to people with the right answers to

questions.

Those at advisory levels valued some of the community features being

included that easily and quickly allow them to access or contribute or gather

information (i.e. online polls, surveys, consultations or ways of asking direct

questions).

They were also open to some forms of working groups; however it would

require a closed group of trusted members and it would need to be possible

to set up and interact quickly and privately. Through the working group

mechanism, policymakers could - for example - identify experts and create

a task force around a specific challenge.

“ I’m seeking answers now, I don’t have time to read theoretical papers...

Other less time-intensive ways of interacting - such as submitting questions

and answers - are also seen as useful by some of the more senior-level

policymakers. In this instance, a “Find/Ask an Expert” type format would be

more suitable, where policymakers can quickly ask specific questions and

find the right answers.

Policymakers would be more likely to use an “Find/Ask an Expert” function

if it were anonymous; however in order to provide value to researchers, it

would have to enable face-to-face interaction to provide a sense of closing

feedback loops.

“ Network building is needed on the web platform – there’s need for a ‘Find an Expert’ section that lets people add themselves to that list, with modifiers in their description. So, you might have ‘Expert, Agriculture’, but I could add 'North America, Modelling, Food Security, Agroecology, Water Quality'...

52

2. Findings


Survey findings:

Policymakers surprised us with their responses to the

survey, saying that they would find detailed studies

of top value (although events are seen to hold the

most value when top and high value are combined).

This contradicted insight gathered from focus groups

and interviews, where policymakers told us that they

were too busy to read long reports. We explain this

discrepancy as a kind of social acceptability bias.

Also, whilst detailed reports may be of high value,

that does not mean that policymakers will actually

read them and use them.

Detailed studies

Detailed studies, reports, papers, etc

Online resources “useful websites”

Datasets

Data visualisations

Online training material (MOOCs, etc.)

Projects and other knowledge-producing activities

News

Events

Glossary

Organisation profiles

People profiles

Audio visual

Brochure, leaflet

Other

Q: The platform aims to organise many different types of policy-relevant knowledge. Which are most valuable to you?

53

2. Findings

Survey findings:

Policymakers were enthusiastic in their survey

responses about their likelihood to behave in a certain

way on the platform. Despite the data showing strong

likelihood across all options here, this is contradicted

by data from the focus groups and interviews.

It is important to note the difference between

publishing an organisation profile, and publishing

a personal profile. When triangulated with the data

from interviews and focus groups, this can be seen

as part of an overall finding around policymakers’

reluctance, on the whole, to publish information about

themselves online, or to engage online. It would be

risky to take this survey response as an indication

that policymakers would engage strongly online in a

public manner.

Detailed studies

Q: How likely are you to…?

Publish a public ‘Organisation profile’ about my organisation

Use online tools to share ideas, ask questions, work with other members, etc

Submit knowledge of any type (see above) to the Platform

Suggest ideas for conferences and workshop

Publish a public ‘personal profile’ about myself


54

2. Findings

Survey findings:

This survey response directly contradicts findings from

all focus groups and interviews involving policymakers

- many felt that they would be reluctant to engage

online, particularly commenting, if they felt that they

would be exposed. Many policymakers are simply

not permitted to comment publicly in this way.

One potential reason for this is the second part of the

answer option - “willing to learn”. This may have

skewed results away from what policymakers are,

realistically, likely to do.

Detailed studies

Q: If you would like to share ideas, ask questions, work together with other Members, which online tools are you most comfortable using?

Answer online polls, surveys, consultations

Join online working groups or committees

Join webinars and other online video conferences

Submit questions, answers and opinions to online forums

Use wikis and other groupware documents

Use other online collaboration tools

Comment on any piece of online content

Share your ideas via a blog post


55

2. Findings

Provide highlights, summaries and short concise content 1.

Send content directly to people in formats useful to them

2.

Provide data visualisation that helps summarise data and make it easier to digest

3.




2.3.1 Policymaker-specific findings: Design principles

Introduce ways of quickly asking questions and getting answers 5.

Introduce ways of working in closed groups that allow for anonymity.

6.

Ensure all information is actionable and links to ways to connect with the person behind the research 4.

56

Section 3

Recommendations

57

Section 3.1

Recommended

strategy

58

The JRC require clarity on the scope, scale and strategy

for its Knowledge for Policy web platform.

This audience research has sought to answer how best to

bridge the cultural and disciplinary divide between those who

advise, decide and make policy and those who generate the

evidence that should be used to improve policymaking.

The evidence gathered through the research has led to this

report advising a strategy that is based on two primary

findings:

● Policymakers will visit the web platform if the quality of research

experts are contributing is high enough, trustworthy, and the

external communication from the web platform matches their

rhythms and priorities.

● Researchers will engage on the web platform if there is

demonstrable added value to their work as researchers, as

well as in communicating with policymakers.

These two findings lead to a strategy that:

● Prioritises the needs of policymakers in terms of how the

knowledge is curated and presented externally to match their

rhythms, and ensure that the content is relevant, useful and

usable.

● Prioritises the needs of researchers in terms of features

and functions to create an environment where they are able to

engage and share with each other openly.

Moreover, evidence from interviews and focus groups has shown that the

two worlds of policymaking and research are too far apart for a digital web

platform, on its own, to bridge the gap. There is strong requirement,

therefore, for:

● Community management - a form of curation and translation

that will make knowledge relevant and usable for the world of

policy; and

● Offline interaction - the web platform should enable and

encourage offline interaction as one of its primary goals.

3. Recommendations

3.1 Recommended strategy

59

Prioritise the needs of policymakers in terms of how the

knowledge is curated and presented externally to match

their rhythms, and ensure that the content is relevant and

useful to them.

Prioritise the needs of researchers in terms of

features and functions to create an

environment where they are able to engage

and share with each other openly.

Provide community management

and offline interactions to bridge the

gap between the two communities.

3. Recommendations

3.1 Recommended strategy

60

Section 3.2

Audience

segmentation

61

This research has led to the development of a broad segmentation of

potential web platform users. Previously, more detailed segmentations and

audience class categorisations were helpful in understanding the range and

complexity of potential users and were also used to formulate a sampling

framework for the research.However, they were not enabling clarity around

web platform design (in terms of content, features, functions, etc.), nor

which user groups should be prioritised and which should not.

Through analysis of interview data and focus groups, two important

characteristics of potential users emerged, which have been used to develop

the segmentation. One is a particular behaviour in relation to the web

platform, and the other is a personal characteristic, which the evidence tells

us will affect how that individual would interact with the web platform, and

with other web platform users.

Across all audience classes - and within policymakers and researchers -

there is an important distinction made between those who are senior

and highly expert, and those who are not. They process knowledge and

information differently, they use knowledge in different ways, and their

reputations on the web platform would have significant impact on how

valuable their input and presence is perceived to be by others.

There will be different user journeys through the web platform. Some users

will actively upload and share information. Others will simply download

documents, or read the newspage, and process knowledge offline. Some

will expect content to come to them through newsletters, and may rarely

visit the web platform itself. This behavioural characteristic is an important

differentiator between users, and will help us understand how the web

platform can respond to different needs across varied users.

Level of seniority and expertise 1.

Degree of proactive sharing on the web platform 2.

3. Recommendations

3.2 Audience segmentation

62

This segmentation model can be used as

a tool to understand the needs of different

audience groups on the web platform.

Both policymakers and researchers

can occupy all four quadrants.

However, generally speaking, it is more

likely that policymakers will be within

quadrants 1 and 3, whilst researchers will

be within quadrants 2 and 4.

Needs that were identified in this research are

included against each of the quadrants. Some needs

were identified by many participants, and some by

one or two. In the case of the latter, this report has

used existing knowledge and judgment about

whether this need is valid for that kind of platform

participant.

3. Recommendations

3.2 Audience segmentation

63

Segment 1:

“The decision makers”

The decision maker primarily uses and

shares knowledge, and is likely to be a

senior policymaker in the Commission, or the

European Parliament. They will come to the

web platform to read short briefings or content,

to quickly verify what they know, or source an

expert to speak at their event. They are very

likely to be more passive in receiving

knowledge, although some may very

occasionally contribute in a safe environment.

3. Recommendations

3.2 Audience segmentation (policymakers 1): “The decision makers”

64

1. I need to address a critical problem right now. I don’t even know if somebody has the answers I need.

Some policymakers have immediate challenges, and may need evidence on a topic very quickly, but do not know if the evidence exists.

6. I need evidence relevant to what is happening in the chamber or on committees so that I can make better decisions as part of my legislative role.

Many policymakers consulted as part of this project indicated that they would be more likely to engage with evidence if it were directly relevant to their legislative role.

2. I need five points on one side of paper so that I can support my policy.

Senior policymakers who engaged in this research told us that they often are not able to read more than one side of paper as part of their evidence gathering exercises.

7. I need to be able to share my policy challenges or ideas so that I can have them challenged by experts.

Some policymakers, perhaps outside of a political party, are interested in having a space through which they can see their ideas challenged and shaped by experts.

3. I need to access the exact right person so that I can ask them questions.

Policymakers value face-to-face contact with leading experts, but do not often know who that leading expert is.

8. I need to listen to a range of views so that I can find the points of communality and agreement.

Policymakers value the opportunity to read and engage with evidence that shows a different viewpoint, so they are able to find points of agreement. Policymakers do not want to engage in an echo chamber.

4. I need the evidence explained to me by a trusted third party so I know it is not biased.

Policymakers who were engaged in this research explained how they receive a large amount of knowledge and evidence, and often lack a trusted third party to verify that it is unbiased and accurate.

9. I need access to the newest thinking/research so I can include it in my speeches/work.

Policymakers need to know that the evidence they are using in their work is the very latest thinking, and have confidence that they have as complete a picture as possible.

5. I need to show that I have consulted with a range of views so that I can promote fairness.

Policymakers have a duty to promote fairness, and show that they have consulted widely before making a political decision regarding policy.

3. Recommendations

3.2 Audience segmentation (policymakers 1): The decision makers’ needs

65

Segment 2:

“The experts”

The expert primarily creates and shares

knowledge, and is a senior academic or topic

specialist who produces leading knowledge that

can be useful to policymakers across the EU.

They are recognised by their peers for their

quality and positive reputation, and could work

inside a university, for an NGO, or for another

agency. They will most likely engage in a

proactive way with the platform - to promote

their work and engage with the policymaking

community - although some may visit the

platform simply to absorb information (in which

case their needs are likely to be met by those

features that serve quadrants 1 and 3).

3. Recommendations

3.2 Audience segmentation (researchers): “The experts”

66

1. I need to find others doing similar work to me so that I can connect with them, learn what they are doing, and know what is best practice.

Researchers feel there would be value in a web platform that enabled them to connect with others working on similar topics (existing cross-national networks are not currently meeting this need).

6. I need to know the different EU and national focuses so that I can see where my research can be most useful.

Researchers would like to know what is happening around the EU in policy terms so they are better equipped to reformulate their research for different policy audiences.

2. I need to find people relevant to my work from outside the EU so that I can arrange a face-to-face meeting with them.

A great majority of participants in this research wanted to use the web platform as a way of facilitating a face-to-face meeting with people from inside and outside the EU.

7. I need to know if people are using our work so that I can learn from how they are using it.

Many researchers want to know if and how their work is being used by a policy audience in order to understand their impact better.

3. I need to ask a specific question to a community - i.e. “Do you know anything about XYZ topic?” - so that I can have the right answers quickly.

Many researchers and experts want to make quick connections with colleagues across the EU and beyond to answer immediate questions and gain insight into their own research.

8. I need well-curated info-bytes so that I can orient myself quickly and find good information.

Researchers are busy, like policymakers, and need to be able to understand how the web platform works and how the information is accessed with ease.

4. I need to understand how to communicate with policymakers/better understand the policy landscape so that I can impact it.

Many researchers were keen to engage with the policy audience, but didn’t feel that they had the skills or knowledge to do this effectively.

9. I need access to information from many fields other than my own so that I can learn from them.

Many researchers saw value in the web platform in that it will be able to make links across disciplinary boundaries, as most policy-relevant research will be interdisciplinary, or combine insight from different fields.

5. I need to create a space for myself and my organisation at EU level and access JRC networks so that I can reach new audiences for my research.

Researchers saw value in the web platform as something that gives access to EU-level networks and gives their research reach outside of their own country.

3. Recommendations

3.2 Audience segmentation (researchers): The experts’ needs

67

Segment 3:

The advisors

The advisor primarily finds and uses

knowledge and works as part of the team that

advises senior decision makers in governments

and parliaments. They provide advice to their

employer, help source information and

expertise, and write speeches. They are more

likely to be passive than proactive, but will

engage more than their senior colleagues (the

decision makers).

3. Recommendations

3.2 Audience segmentation (policymakers 2): “The advisors”

68

1. I need to know how knowledge links to the work of a particular committee so I can find what is relevant to me and my boss.

Many junior policymakers are looking for evidence according to a particular timetable, and will be unwilling to engage with evidence that does not correspond to their immediate need.

6. I need to be inspired by a new piece of information so that I can move beyond the usual sources I use and have exhausted.

Policymakers continue to use the same kind of information resource repeatedly because they trust it - they are looking to be inspired to find different sources.

2. I need to speak to a scientist so I can better understand the context behind a report or statistic.

Advisors or junior policymakers need to have a clear idea of what evidence means so they are able to advise effectively.

7. I need language and statistics in a visual form so that I can understand evidence easily.

Statistical literacy is not uniformly high across the policymaking community, and the web platform should take this into account.

3. I need language and statistics in a visual form so that I can understand evidence easily.

Statistical literacy is not uniformly high across the policymaking community, and the web platform should take this into account.

8. I need to work with other advisors of MEPs in our party grouping so I can help formulate our collective decision using evidence.

Advisors often work in groups, and collectively share information and formulate a view along with colleagues.

4. I need to see longer-term trends in data analysis so that I can inform my colleagues accurately and intelligently.

Junior policymakers often have the space and time to engage with more sophisticated sources of evidence than their senior colleagues.

5. I need technical terms explained to me so that I can understand how particular terms used by researchers will translate, and the implications of these.

Many policymakers processing evidence from across different countries need help in translating different concepts across cultures and disciplines.

3. Recommendations

3.2 Audience segmentation (policymakers 2): The advisors’ needs

69

Segment 4:

The junior researchers

The junior researcher shares and engages

with knowledge and sometimes creates

knowledge (but it is of a less developed

standard and quality). They are likely to be

PhD students or early postdocs in academic

institutions.

Policymakers will only engage if they are

confident that the expertise on the web

platform is high and the evidence is of leading

quality. More senior researchers told us that

they would not engage if the web platform was

not solely composed of their peers.

Therefore, it is proposed that the

Knowledge for Policy web platform does

not seek to meet the needs of less

experienced/more junior researchers.

3. Recommendations

3.2 Audience segmentation (researchers 2): “The junior researchers”

70

Section 3.3

Features

and content

71

Segment 1: The decision makers

The decision maker

primarily uses and

shares knowledge

Segment 2: The experts

The expert primarily

creates and shares

knowledge

Segment 3: The advisors

The advisor primarily

finds and uses

knowledge

In order to ensure the web platform is

successful, it is essential that it is designed

in such a way that the features and

content - as well as the supporting

community management - work coherently

to meet the needs of each of the segments

outlined in Section 3.2.

The following pages set out the features, content

and community management that we recommend

prioritising for each segment, based on findings from

the interviews, surveys and focus groups.

The recommended features, content and community

management are also mapped alongside each

segment’s needs, as well as their overarching focus:

whether they primarily find, create, use or share

knowledge. Scenarios are included for each segment,

to bring to life how they might interact with the

platform.

3. Recommendations

3.3 Recommended features and content

72

The decision maker primarily uses and shares

knowledge and is likely to be a senior policymaker in

the Commission, or the European Parliament. They will come

to the web platform to read short briefings or news items, to

quickly verify what they know, or source a expert to speak at

their event.

“ I wouldn't ever have data or anything I could contribute to the web platform or time to engage with it, information needs to come to me when I need it...

3. Recommendations

3.3 Audience segmentation: The decision maker persona

Scenario:

The decision maker is delivering a speech in three weeks

from now and they have tasked their team with briefing

them on the key debates around the issue. They’d like to

know the headlines about the topic.


event run by the JRC and think it might be helpful. They reach out

to the Knowledge for Policy community managers to find out if

there’s anything relevant to that topic. They’re sent a short,

informative digest of the latest thought pieces and headlines from

debates as well the a list of top experts in the area and how to

reach them for further information. They get their team to reach

out to the relevant experts using the researcher directory function

so they can get the latest on the topic.

73













externally to match their rhythms, and ensure

that the content is relevant, useful and usable to

them.

Researcher directory (“Find/Ask an Expert”). Database of experts

with the option to very quickly search for and find the relevant experts.

Short profiles tagged according to locations, topics and detailed specialities to

allow for accurate searching. Potentially a facilitated “Find/Ask an Expert”

service offered by the community management team (e.g matching

researcher/s to policymakers).

Legislative focused interface (aligned to policy timelines). Legislative


timelines as well as the projects and communities currently developing content

in research.

3. Recommendations

3.3 Recommended features and content: The decision makers

74

I need to access the exact right person so that I can ask them questions.

I need evidence relevant to what is happening in the chamber or on committees so that I can make better decisions as part of my legislative role.

I need five points on one side of paper so that I can support my policy.

I need to listen to a range of views so that I can find the points of communality and agreement

I need to address a critical problem right now. I don’t even know if somebody has the answers I need.

I need to access the exact right person so that I can ask them questions.

I need the evidence explained to me by a trusted third party so I know it is not biased.

Relevant features:

- Researcher

directory (“Find/Ask

an Expert”)

- Facilitated “Find an

Expert” matching

- Closed working

groups

Relevant features:

- Highlights/

latest news

(policy focused)

- Legislative focused

interface (aligned to

policy timelines)

- Reports or content

(with policy-focused

summary

information)

Relevant features:



summary information -

e.g policy briefs)

- Infographics

Relevant features:

- Researcher directory

(“Find/Ask an Expert”)


Expert” matching

- Closed working

groups

- Topic debates

Relevant features:




Expert” matching

- Closed working

groups

Relevant features:




Expert” matching

- Closed working

groups

Relevant features:




Expert” matching

- Closed working

groups

- Topic debates

- Topic themed

thought pieces

(policy-focused

content)

3. Recommendations


75

I need to show that I have consulted with a range of views so that I can promote fairness.

I need to be able to share my policy challenges or ideas so that I can have them challenged by experts.

I need access to the newest thinking/research so I can include it in my speeches/work

Relevant features:

- Researcher


an Expert”)

- Closed working

groups

Relevant features:

- Researcher


an Expert”)

- Closed working

groups

Relevant features:

- Highlights/

latest news

(policy focused)

- Topic themed

thought pieces

(policy-focused

content)

3. Recommendations


76

The expert primarily creates and shares knowledge, and

is a senior academic or topic specialist who produces leading

knowledge that can be useful to policymakers across the EU.

They are recognised by their peers for their quality and

positive reputation, and could work inside a university,

for an NGO, or for another agency. They are fairly proactive

and likely to engage with the platform if it helps them meet

their needs.

“ I will reach out to my own connections in other fields and ask them things - e.g. ‘What are you doing with drones?’ - so I can better understand how it might be applied to my projects...

Scenario:

The expert is working on a research project proposal and

needs to explore who might be doing work on a similar

topic and what their findings have been. They would also

find it useful to better understand how their work might

be relevant in a policy context as they’d like to increase

their profile in the EU space.

They already have a profile on the Knowledge for Policy web

platform, and know this is a good starting point for exploring

other projects and people working on the topic. Using the

researcher directory and tagged profiles they’re able to see just

how many people are working on a similar topic area, in a

particular geographic area, and reach out to them directly.

They’ve also received communications from the Knowledge for

Policy community managers on topics that are currently

particularly policy relevant. Therefore they update their profile

adding a short paragraph on their expertise in the area, as well as

key words, so that anyone searching can easily find them and

get in touch.

3. Recommendations

3.3 Audience segmentation: The expert persona

77

Web platform features to prioritise for this segment: Prioritise the needs of researchers in terms of

features and functions that creates an

environment where they are able to engage and

share with each other openly.

Highlights/latest news (researcher focused). Highlights or latest research

curated to be relevant to an expert audience. These highlights should both be

at the homepage on the web platform and allow for easy navigation either

across content (i.e for those who want to look across topics) as well as those

who very quickly want to access more specific information.

Topic-themed thought pieces (researcher focused). More in-depth

content, carefully created/curated by communications team. Including thought

pieces, analysis, and summaries of various research projects. Themed based on

topical subjects, highlighting different countries’ approaches etc.

Content submission. Option to add content (written to appeal to policy

audience - i.e. short, summarised content). Linked to personal/organisational

profiles. Submission guidelines in presenting information. Support from

community management team in preparing information for policy audience

(e.g through training sessions, particularly in presenting data, as well as

communications and guidelines to ensure researchers are submitting content

according to policy timelines).

3. Recommendations

3.3 Recommended features and content: The experts

78

Web platform features to prioritise for this segment:

Personal profile. Simple profiles that are searchable through researcher

directory. As much as possible fields should be easy to update, pre-populated

from other widely used web platforms (e.g Research Gate and LinkedIn) and

allow for others to get in touch. Researchers should be prompted to complete

profiles. Profiles might highlight things in common (e.g. topic area) and

researchers might receive updates on other researchers who are new to the

web platform and might be relevant.

Organisational profile. Simple organisational profile to enable researchers to

affiliate themselves to an organisation and build trust. Profiles should focus on

highlighting the work produced by the organisation. Search functionality should

allow for detailed searching through projects and communications/community

management should highlight those working on similar topics.

Researcher directory (“Find/Ask an Expert”). Option to join database of

experts as well as quickly search for and find and connect with others relevant

to their work. Short profiles tagged according to locations, topics and detailed

specialities to allow for accurate searching.

Granular search. Ability to search for people, their projects and experience, as

well as through available content based on detailed search criteria (e.g location,

topics, keywords).

Guidance on sharing with policy audience. Best practice, guidelines and

training for sharing research with policy audience. Overview of policy landscape

and timelines and ways of navigating policy landscape (e.g overviews of

organisations and departments, interactive mapping of landscape, or training).

3. Recommendations


79

I need access to information from many fields other than my own so that I can learn from them.

I need well-curated info-bytes so that I can orient myself quickly and find good information.

I need to find others doing similar work to me so that I can connect with them, learn what they are doing, and know what is best practice.

I need to ask a specific question to a community - i.e. “Do you know anything about XYZ topic” - so that I can have the right answers quickly.

I need to find people relevant to my work from outside the EU so that I can arrange a face-to-face meeting with them.

Relevant features:

- Highlights/

latest news

(researcher-focused

content)

- Topic-themed

thought pieces

(researcher-focused

content)

- Granular search

Relevant features:

- Highlights/

latest news

(researcher-focused

content)

- Topic-themed

thought pieces

(researcher-focused

content)

- Granular search

Relevant features:



- Algorithm or ways of

dynamically connecting

people

Relevant features:





people

Relevant features:





people

- Closed working

groups

3. Recommendations


80

I need to know the different EU and national focuses so that I can see where my research can be most useful.

I need to create a space for myself and my organisation at EU level and access JRC networks so that I can reach new audiences for my research.

I need to understand how to communicate with policymakers/better understand the policy landscape so that I can impact it.

I need to know if people are using our work so that I can learn from how they are using it.

Relevant features:

- Overview of policy

landscape and

timelines

Relevant features:

- Researcher

directory (including

selected projects

and topics)

- Organisational

profiles

- Content

submission

Relevant features:

- Best practice and

guidance on sharing

with policy audience

- Overview of policy

landscape and

timelines

Relevant features:

- Closed working

groups

3. Recommendations


81

“ It's not the senior people looking at the data, it's us as advisors who are researching and finding things for them…

3. Recommendations

3.3 Audience segmentation: The advisor persona

The advisor primarily finds and uses knowledge and works

as part of the team that advises senior decision makers in

governments and parliaments. They provide advice to their

employer, help source information and expertise, and write

speeches. While interested in finding new sources of

information and data, they’re under time pressure and need

quick access to credible sources and the right people to

speak to.

Scenario:

The advisor is working on preparing a speech for his

more senior colleague. They’re under time pressure to find

information that is relevant and don’t have time to search

through many different sources, or get up to speed on the

latest technical terms or data, related to a new subject

matter.


event run by the JRC and think it might be helpful. The access the

researcher directory and search for the few key words they think

might point them in the direction of someone who can help.

They’re able to read short bios about each person, see their areas

of focus and short summaries of key research. Signing up to the

platform, they’re now able to create a closed working group, add

relevant people and ask them questions directly to quickly inform

their speech writing.

82



externally to match their rhythms and ensure that

the content is relevant, useful and usable to

them.











Legislative-focused interface (aligned to policy timelines). Legislative


timelines as well as the projects and communities currently developing

content in research.

3. Recommendations

3.3 Recommended features and content: The advisors

83

Reports or content (with policy-focused summary information).

Access to more detailed reports or content with ability to reach out to relevant

experts in order to be able to ask questions, understand wider context behind

research or request other relevant information.

Data visualisation and infographics.

Infographic-style data visualisation that allows for easier understanding of

research or providing a summary before accessing more in-depth content. Data

visualisation in more interactive style, where nature of research lends itself to

needing to see or compare long-term trends, patterns, etc.

Glossary. Technical terms presented in user-friendly way (e.g easily accessible

when reading content that needs explanation without navigating away from

content).

Closed working groups. Ability to form groups with relevant experts to work

on addressing a particular challenge or question. Groups need to be closed and

not publically viewable. Groups should be simple to set up and use, linking out

or making use of existing and widely used collaboration tools where possible.

Organisational profile. Simple organisational profile to enable policymakers

to interact on behalf of their organisation where needed (e.g convening task

group around specific issues).


Researcher directory (“Find/Ask an Expert”) Database of experts with the

option to very quickly search for and find the relevant experts. Short profiles

tagged according to locations, topics and detailed specialities to allow for

accurate searching. Potentially a facilitated “Find/Ask an Expert” service offered

by the community management team (e.g matching researcher/s to

policymakers).

3. Recommendations


84

I need to know how knowledge links to the work of a particular committee so I can find what is relevant to me and my boss.

I need to speak to a scientist so I can better understand the context behind a report or statistic.

I need to be inspired by a new piece of information so that I can move beyond the usual sources I use and have exhausted.

I need technical terms explained to me so that I can understand how particular terms used by researchers will translate, and the implications of these.

I need language and statistics in a visual form so that I can understand evidence easily.

I need to see longer-term trends in data analysis so that I can inform my colleagues accurately and intelligently.

I need to work with other MEPs’ advisors in our party grouping so I can help formulate our collective decision using evidence.

Relevant features:

- Highlights/

latest news

(policy focused)

- Legislative-focused

interface (aligned to

policy timelines)



summary

information)

Relevant features:

- Researcher


an Expert”)

- Organisational

profile

- Closed working

groups

Relevant features:

- Highlights/

latest news

(policy focused)

- Topic-themed

thought pieces -

(policy-focused

content)

Relevant features:

- Glossary

Relevant features:



summary information)

- Infographics and

data visualisation

Relevant features:

- Data visualisation



Relevant features:

- Closed working

groups

3. Recommendations


85

Section 4

Appendices

86

Project objectives:

• Understand how key audiences interact with knowledge and incorporate it into their

work

• Understand how a digital platform can support some of these practices and needs

• ...In order to support platform development in the post-launch phase

Interview specific objectives:

• Understand the similarities and differences of the various audience groups

• See first-hand how different audience groups find, use, create, and share knowledge in

relation to their work – and how this might be facilitated through the new knowledge for

policy platform

• Use the findings from these interviews to highlight issues to explore further through the

survey and focus groups, develop further segmentation models and audience group

personas for use throughout the project and platform development

Discussion Guide for Audience Interviews

87

Methodological principles: • Audience research prior to user experience (UX) and usability testing. The interviews aim to capture deeper

audience research (who are the potential audiences and what do they need?) whilst the surveys and particularly the

focus groups will go into more granular detail about the requirements of the platform through more focused UX

testing (does the platform design/features provide for that need and in the best way?)

• Ethnographic interviewing. Our methodology draws on an ethnographic approach. Ethnographic interviewing is a

way of interviewing that lets participants define what they talk about and how they talk about it. In practice, this

means they have more control over the emphasis of the conversation and the flow and the terms and language that

are used, compared to non-ethnographic interviewing. The interview follows a layered process in which layers of

information about research themes are built gradually and always informed primarily by participants’ own

perspectives. The value of ethnography is to both understand contexts, and spot the differences between what people

say/ think they do, and what they actually do in reality.

• Observation technique. Observation technique is a guided activity. Research themes guide observation work and

detailed notes are made following the session to record the chronology of events, conversations and guided

observations about body languages, behaviours, practices and feelings related to them. The interviewer will observe

participants during the session, accompanying them as they go about their daily activities (where feasible and

appropriate) and observing how they respond and react to our conversations and activities

• Iterative. All research conducted in this project follows the approach of iterative analysis, thus findings from these

interviews will be built upon to inform the subsequent survey and focus groups. We will also follow an iterative

approach for this discussion guide, adjusting and improving it as needed throughout the research process to ensure all

objectives above are satisfied.


88


Section A: Introduction

Aim To give clarity of purpose, introduce the project, explain what will happen in the sessions and create a comfortable setting for discussion.

Call: +- 5 min In person: +- 15 min

•Meet the interviewee and select suitable interview location, ideally in a quiet place in their day-to-day work environment •Introduce yourself, the project, and your role on the project:

• Supporting JRC on audience research to inform the development of the new Knowledge for Policy platform that will enable better sharing of knowledge between those in science and policy fields.

•Explain that the interview will take about 2+ hours (1 hour for Skype interviews) •Explain that we’re speaking to a range of key people within science/policy fields from across the EU, those within government or academia and outside of it •Explain why we would like to speak to them: e.g to provide perspective from academia. •Ask them to complete consent form (if applicable) •Check that they are okay for you to audio record the session and/or take photos (of their environment and/or them). Explain that this will only be used for research and reporting purposes and/or any case studies.

Throughout this discussion guide, in the case of calls questions will be adapted to be shorter, whereas in person more time will be spent delving deeper into questions. In person ideally the interview will take place in the interviewee’s workplace, allowing interviewer to observe their working environment, current practices around communication etc. • Discussion guide •ID •Data capture document •Audio recorder •Consent forms •Camera/Phone camera

89


Section B: About them

Aim To gain a better background understanding of the individual and their role. Build a shared understanding of the term ‘knowledge’ and their awareness of JRC/KSs.


•Let the interviewee know that we’d like to start with getting a better understanding of them. •Using a persona template explore and capture the following types of information about the individual:

• Daily activities, routines and tasks associated with their role

• Topics/areas they are primarily concerned with within their role • People and organisations they interact with

daily/weekly/monthly/yearly as part of their role • Types of decisions they make within

their role / what this impacts • Types of information they interact with regularly in their role • Conferences, events and groups they attend in relation to their

work • Any awareness of/interaction with JRC/KSs.

•Explain that you want to explore their understanding of the term ‘knowledge’:

• Ask them to share what it means to them; particularly in relation to their work

• Explore whether theoretical vs practical; facts/data/information based vs skills and experience based

• How actively is new knowledge is sought in their work?

• Where do they place themselves in relation to creating vs using knowledge? And finding vs sharing knowledge?

• Persona template •Find/Use/Create/Share matrix template

90


Section C: Knowledge in their group and discipline

Aim To explore how knowledge is accessed, created, used and shared within their group and discipline.


•Explore with the interviewee the way their group/discipline finds, uses, creates and shares knowledge. •Using a mapping sheet to capture the conversation:

• How do they think information is found in their group/discipline? Prompt: organisations, networks, channels etc. Prompt: What opportunities/challenges are there to this?

• How do they think information is used in their group/discipline? Prompt: What opportunities/challenges are there to this?

• What knowledge do they think is created in their group/discipline? Prompt:What opportunities/challenges are there to this?

• What and how is knowledge shared in their group/discipline? Prompt: both internally (e.g between colleagues/departments/other relevant bodies or organisations) and externally (e.g policy/academia/science or the general public) Prompt: What opportunities/challenges are there to this?

• What do they think those from their group/discipline might gain from interacting with KFP? What do they think they might be able to contribute to the KSs?

• Data capture document •Examples of other types of data presentation •Mapping sheet (Find, Use, Create Share sections) •Post-its

91


Section D: Their knowledge exchange practices

Aim To explore how knowledge is accessed, created, used and shared within their own work.


•Explore with the interviewee their current individual preferences and practices in exchanging knowledge:

• How do they normally find information/knowledge relevant to their work? Prompt: organisations, networks, channels etc. Prompt: What opportunities/challenges are there to this?

• How do they normally create new information/knowledge within their work? Prompt: What opportunities/challenges are there to this?

• How do they normally use new information/knowledge within their work? Prompt: What opportunities/challenges are there to this?

• How do they normally share new information/knowledge within their work? Prompt: What opportunities/challenges are there to this?

• What do they think they might gain from interacting with KFP? What do they think they might be able to contribute to KFP?

•Data capture document •Mapping sheet (Find, Use, Create Share sections) •Post-its

92


Section E: Communication preferences

Aim To explore their preferences for communicating online and offline


•Explore with the interviewee how they currently interact offline:

• What currently enables them to find information offline? • What communities or groups are they part of? Probe: What do they gain

from being part of these communities? How actively do they contribute? What types of knowledge do they gain from each?

• What conferences and events do they attend? How regularly? For what purposes?

• What tools, materials or resources currently support them in relation to their work? How regularly do they use these and for what purpose? Ask for them to show and talk you through any examples.

• What formats or types of information do they respond to best online? And find most suitable for their work? Prompt: Reports, summaries, infographics. Ask them to show you examples.

• Explore with the interviewee how they currently interact online: • What currently enables them to find information online? • What online communities are they part of? Prompt: What do they gain

from being part of those communities? How actively do they contribute? What types of knowledge do they gain from each?

• What other websites, tools, resources do they find helpful within their work? Prompt: How regularly do they use these and for what purpose? Ask for them to show and talk you through any examples.

• What formats or types of information do they respond to best online? And find most suitable for their work? Prompt: Reports, summaries, data visualisation, video etc. Ask them to show you examples.

•Data capture document

93


Section F: Wrap up

Aim End session


•Ask the interviewee if there’s anything else they’d like to add to, let them know that they can get in touch via email if they have any further reflections •Thank them for their time and valuable contribution.

94

Focus Group Agenda

Timing Activity Materials

10 min 2 mins 5 mins 3 mins

Introduction and welcome Aim: To welcome participants, set them at ease, give them the relevant background information needed to participate in the focus group. Welcome •Welcome participants, introduce ourselves, the purposes of this focus group, and the aims and agenda for the session •Housekeeping: Let them know about refreshments, toilets and photography Icebreaker •Participants are prompted to write down their ‘Most useful online tool or app’ on a post-it. They then introduce themselves, their role and their most useful app or tool and why it was useful Background •Participants are given an overview of the KFP platform and what it hopes to achieve

Name labels and contact details sheet Post-its and sharpies Knowledge for Policy platform vision/summary poster/slide

95

Focus Group Agenda


55 min 8 mins 8 mins

Activity #1: Research Aim: To get everyone on the same page, and gather further insight into the various potential audiences of the Knowledge for Policy platform. Research stations Participants make their way around room contributing at various stations and participate in various informal discussions. •Let participants know that there are various ‘stations’ around the room that replay some of the findings from survey and interviews to date (through posters and other materials with graphics, information) •Ask participants to make their way through all the stations, contributing their own details and thoughts where prompted (TK/LM) • Station 1: About you and your organisation

• Pre-populated posters showing survey/interview data, stickers and post-its for participants to add their responses

• Station 2: Finding and sharing knowledge

• Pre-populated posters showing survey/interview data, stickers and post-its for participants to add their responses

Research posters Stickers and post-its

96

Focus Group Agenda


55 min 8 mins 8 mins 10 minutes

Activity #1: Research • Station 3: Platform audiences

• User stories Posters showing the various user stories/goals of potential users of the Knowledge for Policy platform. These will be developed from the interview/survey data

• Post-its for participants to contribute/challenge aspects of the user stories based on their experience

• Feedback and discussions • Bring room back together for short discussion. Prompt participants to

share back: Anything they found surprising? Anything they disagreed with? Their thoughts on potential audiences groups for the platform and their needs

• Platform principles • In smaller groups, and keeping one audience group/user in mind and

their goals, participants brainstorm what the KFP platform must offer in order to satisfy their needs

• Groups feedback to the wider group and collectively develop the principles the platform needs to adhere to in order to satisfy the needs of the audiences

Research posters Stickers and post-its

97

Focus Group Agenda

10 min break (Teas and coffees)

50 min 15 mins 15 mins 20 mins

Activity #2: User experience Aim: To develop a set of guiding principles for the platform, gather depth of insight into the User Experience of specific elements of the platform, including any wireframes that are in development, and how these might meet the goals of potential audiences. • User goals

• In smaller groups, and keeping one audience group/user in mind and their goals, participants review the wireframes of the KFP platform and on flipchart map out how this user will reach his goal through using the platform.

• Goals to be developed from analysis of interviews and surveys but might be something like --”As a academic expert, I need to find other organisations interested in the specific topic I’m working on, in order to share my research with those who might be interested in hearing about it.”

• They also note down any improvements they might make to make this interaction easier (examples of other websites are on hand for inspiration)

• Feedback and discussion • Bring room back together for short discussion. Prompt

participants to share back: who their user was, what their goal was, how the platform met the needs they have/ what improvements they made in order to meet these needs

Flipchart, post-its, sharpies User stories Wireframes of key sections of the site Examples of other sites

5 min Wrap up Thank attendees for coming and share next steps.

98

Pictures from the focus group at the JRC February 22, 2018

99

Focus Group Agenda

100

Focus Group Agenda

101

102

103

104

Graphs Related to Researchers

105

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

Where are you based?

106

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Naturalsciences

Social sciences Other Economics andanalysis

No particularfocus

What subject matter do you primarily work with/in?

107

63.93%

36.07%

Have you interacted with any of the JRC knowledge services previously?

No Yes

108

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Which knowledge services have you interacted with before?

109

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Extremely useful Very useful Slightly useful Not at all useful

How useful have these interactions been to you?

110

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Finding knowledge Using knowledge Creating knowledge Sharing knowledge

Thinking about your professional role and the work you do: what do you consider to be

most central to your work?

111

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3


Thinking about your organisation: what do you consider the most central to what your

organisation does?

112

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

I strongly agree I agree I disagree I strongly disagree

It is very important that the scientific work I do is ‘taken up’ by policymakers

113

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

I publish my results via the usual scientific channels (journals, scientific …

I present my results at events whichpolicymakers (or the media they read)…

I create dedicated content forpolicymakers (and/or their media)

I promote my content online, targetingpolicymakers (and/or their media)

Consider the following scenario: you want to share your knowledge with a group of

policymakers... How would you normally do this?

114

0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00%

Developing your own or your …

Finding out about other relevant…

Finding people working on similar…

Creating new contacts or networks

Sharing your work, knowledge or…

Other

Thinking about any events, seminars or conferences you might attend as part of your work. What is your main reason for attending

these events or conferences?

115

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

All of them Most of them Some of them Very few of them

How well do most events allow you to achieve the above goals?

116

63.27%

36.73%

Are you involved in any communities or groups for your work? Either face-to-face or

online?

Yes No

117

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Developing your own or your organisation’s knowledge

Finding out about other relevant topics,organisations or projects

Finding people working on similar topicsor projects


Sharing your or your organisationswork, knowledge or experience

Other

What is your main reason for taking part in them?

118

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Insufficient time to find/participate

None relevant to my work

I don't see sufficient benefits

I worry about privacy ofdata/information, my organisation's…

I worry about privacy of data/information

Other

What are the main problems with participating in online communities or

groups?

119

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Advanced search (e.g., multi-database, multilingual taxonomies, thesaurus-

based…)

Community, allowing Platform Membersto share, discuss and co-create

knowledge

Data visualisations

Where should we focus our resources?

120

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

The platform aims to organise many different types of policy-relevant knowledge. Which are of most value to you?

Top value High value Low value Not valuable at all

121

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Submitknowledge ofany type (seeabove) to the

Platform

Suggest ideasfor conferencesand workshops

Publish a public ‘Personal

profile’ about myself

Publish a public ‘Organisation profile’ about

my organisation

Use onlinetools to share

ideas, askquestions, work

with othermembers, etc

How likely are you to….

Definitely Likely Probably not Definitely not

122

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

If you would like to share ideas, ask questions, work together with other

Members, etc., which online tools are you most comfortable using?

At ease Willing to learn Don't want to use

123

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

None Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Other

Which social media channels do you use professionally?

124

Graphs Related to Policy Makers

125

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Where are you based?

126

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Social sciences Naturalsciences

Economics andanalysis

No particularfocus

Other

What subject matter do you primarily work with/in?

127

47.76% 52.24%

Have you interacted with any of the JRC knowledge services previously?

Yes No

128

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Which knowledge services have you interacted with before?

129

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Extremely useful Very useful Slightly useful Not at all useful

How useful have these interactions been to you?

130

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5


Thinking about your professional role and the work you do: what do you consider to be

most central to your work?

131

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3


Thinking about your organisation; what do you consider the most central to what your

organisation does?

132

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

EU policy National policy Local/Regionalpolicy

Other (e.g., forinternational

bodies)

On what ‘level’ of policy do you focus most of your attention?

133

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

I agree I disagree I strongly agree

Today I can easily find the scientific knowledge I need for policy

134

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

Consider the following scenario: you need more evidence or the latest thinking to help you make a decision...How do you find this?

Preferred Okay Don’t use

135

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Developing your own or

your organisation’s

knowledge

Finding outabout other

relevant topics,organisations

or projects

Finding peopleworking on

similar topics orprojects

Creating newcontacts ornetworks

Sharing yourwork,

knowledge orexperience

Other

Thinking about any events, seminars or conferences you might attend as part of your work. What is your

main reason for attending these events or conferences?

136

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

All of them Most of them Some of them Very few of them

How well do most events allow you to achieve the above goals?

137

78%

22%

Are you involved in any communities or groups for your

work? Either face-to-face or online?

Yes No

138

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Developing your own or your organisation’s knowledge

Finding out about other relevant topics,organisations or projects

Finding people working on similar topicsor projects


Sharing your or your organisationswork, knowledge or experience

Other

What is your main reason for taking part in them?

139

0% 5% 10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

Open-Ended Response

Insufficient time to find/participate

None relevant to my work

I don't see sufficient benefits

I worry about privacy of…

I worry about privacy of data/information

Other

What are the main problems with participating in face-to-face communities and

groups?

140

1.7 1.75 1.8 1.85 1.9 1.95 2 2.05 2.1 2.15 2.2

Advanced search (e.g., multi-database, multilingual taxonomies, thesaurus-

based…)

Community, allowing Platform Membersto share, discuss and co-create

knowledge

Data visualisations

Where should we focus our resources?

141

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%

The platform aims to organise many different types of policy-relevant knowledge. Which

are of most value to you?

Top value High value Low value Not valuable at all

142

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Submitknowledge ofany type (seeabove) to the

Platform

Suggest ideasfor conferencesand workshops

Publish a public ‘Personal

profile’ about myself

Publish a public ‘Organisation profile’ about

my organisation

Use onlinetools to share

ideas, askquestions, work

with othermembers, etc

How likely are you to….

Definitely Likely Probably not Definitely not

143

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

If you would like to share ideas, ask questions, work together with other

Members, etc., which online tools are you most comfortable using?

At ease Willing to learn Don't want to use

144

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

None Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Other

Which social media channels do you use professionally?

145

The European Commission’s

Science and Knowledge Service

Joint Research Centre, Knowledge Management

Thematic Coordination Unit H.2

Contributors: KOHUT Thomas, MALAN Laura Reviewers: LOWRY Mathew, CATANA Coralia

This report has been prepared for the European Commission. However it reflects the views only of the authors and the

Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which might be made of the information contained therein

except the one intended to support the development of the Knowledge for Policy web platform.

Documents

Joint Research Centre · Audience Research to Inform the Knowledge for Policy Web Platform Prepared by Uscreates and the Lisbon Council The European Commission’s Science and Knowledge