By Sónia Alves
Reflections from the DASH Project
Following the suggestion of the national coordinators of the DASH project, I was invited by the European Commission to participate in the MSCA–JRC Science–Policy Matchmaking Event.
The event took place on 21 November 2025. Below, I summarise some of the main ideas discussed, as they are highly relevant to the work developed within DASH.
Setting the Scene
The event opened with Marija Mitic, from the MSCA Unit (DG EAC), who highlighted the importance of knowledge for both science and policy. She described MSCA as a bottom-up programme designed to support high-quality training and mobility, with strong emphasis on intersectoral cooperation and great potential to foster evidence-based policymaking.
She explained that this third edition of the Science–Policy Matchmaking Event was conceived to allow participants to present concrete examples of science–policy interactions and how they strengthen evidence use in policy processes.
Mara Silva Almeida (JRC) followed by explaining that the Joint Research Centre is the European Commission’s knowledge service, integrating evidence produced both inside and outside the institution. She stressed the relevance of evidence-informed policymaking in a context marked by complex societal challenges, multiple crises and diverse interests.
Science, she stated, provides “the best available picture of reality” to support informed policy choices.
She also presented data showing how citizens perceive the likelihood that their governments use scientific evidence. These perceptions differ significantly across countries and reflect broader administrative cultures and levels of trust. Mara further emphasised that evidence can enter policymaking at various points — agenda setting, formulation, implementation, monitoring or evaluation — and that when this happens consistently, it helps build trust and institutional capacity.
Session 2: Researchers for Researchers
I contributed to Session 2 – Researchers for Researchers: Working with and Reaching Out to Policymakers, where MSCA fellows and alumni from three MSCA actions — a Doctoral Network, a Postdoctoral Fellowship and a Staff Exchange — shared their experiences at the science–policy interface.
The panel included:
- Olaf Borghi, MSCA Doctoral Candidate, Royal Holloway University of London (IP-PAD DN),
- Dr Luca Di Gennaro Splendore, MSCA Postdoctoral Researcher, University of Malta (DEMSTAT),
- and myself, representing the DASH Staff Exchange.
Together, we discussed secondments, experiences in ministries and municipalities, mobility across sectors, and training within policy institutions. This mix provided diverse and complementary perspectives on how researchers contribute to policy and how institutions support — or sometimes constrain — this interface.
My Contribution (5-minute pitch)
Motivation: Why Work at the Science–Policy Interface
My academic background is in geography, urban planning and sociology — disciplines closely linked to public policy. In recent years, I have focused on housing policy and spatial planning, analysing how goals, instruments and implementation processes shape socioeconomic and spatial inequalities. I am particularly interested in how disadvantaged neighbourhoods evolve and how patterns of segregation emerge.
I have always collaborated with policymakers — not only to access data, but to understand how decisions are made and what shapes implementation on the ground. My research asks simple but essential questions: What works? Where? For whom? And why?
These questions require proximity, dialogue, listening — and a good dose of mobility, because comparative research means going where policies are formulated and implemented.
Pathway: How I Arrived at This Interface
I have benefitted from two MSCA experiences that enabled me to carry out international comparative housing research.
1. Postdoctoral Individual Fellowship – PLANAFFHO
This project analysed inclusionary housing tools in three European capital cities. It combined scientific depth with strong policy relevance and allowed me to understand how policymakers operate: which tools they use, the constraints they face, the partnerships they build, and the solutions they design to address affordability challenges. It strengthened my understanding of how ideas circulate across borders, how local conditions shape outcomes, and why certain instruments succeed in some contexts but not in others.
2. Staff Exchange – DASH (Deliver Safe and Social Housing)
DASH connects partners from Portugal, Denmark, Serbia and Germany — universities, municipalities, housing associations and community organisations. The aim is to understand local and national traditions in housing provision.
We focus on medium-sized cities, which offer a clear lens through which to compare how housing systems function, how they interact with spatial planning, how urban renewal policies evolve, and how models such as cooperative housing or tenants’ democracy take shape.
To support this comparative work, we organise thematic workshops, field visits and structured secondments — unique opportunities for direct engagement with local teams and projects on the ground. Working side by side builds trust, mutual understanding and long-lasting relationships.
Challenges and Lessons Learned
A major challenge is institutional capacity. Organisations may wish to participate in projects but struggle with implementation due to limited staff, unexpected pressures or excessive workload. This reduces the time available for knowledge and skills transfer and can affect secondments, mobility and budget execution. It highlights the importance of discussing expectations and feasibility openly from the start.
Another challenge is the difference in rhythms. Policymakers often need rapid answers, while researchers work on long-term questions requiring time and reflection. Balancing these tempos — without compromising scientific quality — remains central to the science–policy interface.
Through collaborations with DG EMPL and DG REGIO, I learned how to translate research into concrete, technically grounded recommendations. I was impressed by the EU level’s commitment to evidence-based learning — at times even stronger than at national level, where discussions can be more influenced by political considerations.
During my secondments, we observed how political, financial, cultural and administrative contexts shape what is possible in housing. These differences determine which solutions are feasible and which are not. Understanding this diversity is essential for producing realistic and context-sensitive recommendations.
Strengthening the science–policy relationship requires commitment from all sides. Researchers must stay engaged; policymakers and universities must support cross-sectoral careers. Only through dialogue, trust and continued cooperation can evidence genuinely inform policy reform.
Final Reflections
The event closed with insights from Mara Silva Almeida (JRC) and Marija Mitic (DG EAC). Among the key ideas highlighted were:
- Countries differ significantly in how institutionalised their science–policy interfaces are.
- Not all administrations systematically use knowledge, capacity-building or training opportunities.
- Time and continuity are essential to develop strong science–policy ecosystems.
- Improving how researchers communicate evidence is crucial.
Encouragingly, policymakers across Europe are increasingly seeking scientific input to strengthen policy design and implementation.