Knowledge becomes policy-relevant when it has been thought through or critically assessed; in doing so, it brings into the equation the beliefs of those who analyse it, which may introduce distortions. Through policy research, the policy analyst strives to understand the many variables that influence the social problem that is to be addressed by the policy in question.
Make the difference!
Data are raw figures/statements collected in order to conduct some analysis. A piece of information is a refined form of compiled data having already a particular meaning. Knowledge is an output of combined relevant information into formulated policy implications.
The purpose is to build shared knowledge to help stakeholders overcome ideological divides and develop a shared understanding of the policy issue, thereby paving the way for a consensual solution.
Knowledge in policy-making is neither neutral nor objective
It is embedded in a process driven by interests, values and normative views about how things should be. Therefore, depending on personal viewpoints, first-hand life experiences and interests, every stakeholder involved in the INSPIRED dialogue process will have different preferences with regards to the forms of knowledge that they would like to use as a basis for dialogue.
Moreover, the balance of power between those stakeholders might be significantly altered depending on the access to information and certain types of knowledge, or even the capacity to fund research that is steered towards endorsing their political views. Ideally, their different types of knowledge should be combined to provide a fair account of a given public problem and the available policy solutions. They can complement each other, by shedding light on a situation from different angles, bringing to the surface underlying assumptions, preconceptions and value judgements.
At the end of the day, dialogue is precisely about remaining open to what the others have to say and learning why other relevant stakeholders favour certain outcomes, which will, in turn, make it easier to find common positions and widely accepted solutions. However, allowing this diversity of views and preconception to emerge can easily get the dialogue stuck into a naming and shaming exercise, with the participants locking themselves into their initial positions. To overcome this situation, the first phase of the INSPIRED operating model invites the participants to overcome their first preconceptions and misjudgements of each other by means of research. Indeed, through the collective assessment of a shared problem, participants should focus on the identification of potential solutions and therefore engage in a constructive debate that looks forward and does its best to leave past differences behind.
The key differences among stakeholders will certainly remain, but instead of blocking the dialogue, they can be turned into one of the most valuable assets of the process. Indeed, building on difference is crucial to promoting trust dynamics. The main challenge for the facilitator and the policy analyst would then be to structure the knowledge generated by the participants and to promote the creation of new sources of knowledge if needed. In order to feed their discussions with reliable information and to develop a shared understanding of the policy issue, stakeholders can decide collectively what further research is needed as well as the type of knowledge that they want to take into consideration for their debates.
Knowledge production is key to INSPIRED's advocacy and programming activities' success.

Joint Research outputs include, but are not limited to enabling stakeholders to discuss policy reform on a more equal footing in terms of available knowledge in terms of: 1) knowledge, 2) capacities, 3) trust-building and 4) advocacy.