This paper presents the first of these – a conceptual framework to help policymakers, researchers, practitioners and donors better define windows of opportunity in different contexts to focus efforts on promoting better interaction between knowledge and policy. The second is an action paper, which proposes concrete ways in which the framework can be used. The framework comprises six facets or ‘dimensions’ of context that any government institution aiming to improve the use of knowledge in public policy (as well as those working with these agencies) should consider carefully. These six dimensions fall into two categories: external and internal. The first two external dimensions are (1) macro-context; and (2) intra- and inter-relationships with Executive summary state and non-state agents. The four internal dimensions are: (3) culture; (4) organizational capacity; (5) management and processes; and (6) core resources.

This paper is a practical knowledge product that stems from a conceptual framework developed by P&I and INASP to understand how the context at the level of government institutions affects the use of knowledge in policy. The main dimensions presented in the framework are permeated by various degrees of interconnectedness and interdependence, which are typical of complex systems. The dimensions and sub-dimensions included in the framework are repeatedly present when analyzing how research is or not incorporated into the policymaking processes and used by agents.

In a world of growing geopolitical tensions, science remains one common language for developing coordinated international action. When trust in science is compromised, the capacity for cohesive global policy action is further diminished. How can the multilateral policy interface engage effectively with science in ways trusted by populations? To build trust, the paper suggests the need to update the science-policy interface model, considering the empirical evidence from the past 15 years. It explores new frameworks for envisioning what a healthy science-policy interface might look like and how it can engage with the issues that drive various communities to support or oppose science-policy interventions.

The purpose Of the PESTEL analysis is to make you look around and see What is happening in the broader economic and business environment. All businesses are part of a larger system, the economy. Doing a PESTEL analysis helps you to look at all important factors that might affect the success or failure of your business. PESTEL is an acronym for the following factors (Political, economic, Social and cultural, Technological, Environment and Legal). The core elements of the analysis are: ‘Political’, ‘Economic’, ‘Social’ and ‘Technology’. To these core elements are added ‘Environment’ and ‘Legal’ to make the PESTEL the potential issues to examine could volumes and still only scratch the surface so this discussion Focuses on the approach. The detail Will depend on the corporation, its industrial sector and the countries within which it operates

How can place-based methodologies be integrated into transdisciplinary research? Locating research in a real physical place is vital in building culture and making important insights more visible to diverse audiences. But for many researchers and community members, place is more than location. People have important attachments to place that change and influence the outcomes of transdisciplinary research, which is one reason to integrate some place-based methodologies into your projects. Our research studio ‘Mapping Edges’, for example, employs place-based methodologies to identify, analyse and amplify civic ecologies and to propose more sustainable ways to design and live in cities. Place-based research engages with multiple methodological debates, reflecting humanities and social sciences’ increasing interest in space and place. Because of these debates there are multiple definitions of place and multiple ways to study place.