However, while the 'neutrality' of the EMN appears to facilitate data collection and engagement with some stakeholders, particularly policy actors, this approach may arguably also limit what evidence is disseminated by the EMN. For example, one interviewee pointed out that there is a lot of discussion about the language that can be used in EMN outputs, as terms around migration can be politically charged. Therefore, there can be a lot of back and forth to ensure neutrality before outputs are finalized (Interviewee 10, echoed by Interviewee 19). In addition, while some respondents perceive EMN outputs to be particularly reliable (e.g., interviewees 2, 12 & 17), another participant noted that some actors can be reluctant to take information from EMN outputs at face value. According to this interviewee, this is due to the proximity of many NCPs to national authorities, which raises the suspicion that the information provided has been 'smoothed out' and does not necessarily reflect the true picture (interviewee 18). This shows that what is considered to be objective and neutral evidence is not uncontroversial. Thus, while this goes beyond the scope of the research, though the EMN's focus on ‘neutrality’ can increase engagement with some actors, it also raises the question of what, if any, evidence is marginalized to maintain this neutrality. For example, one perspective not included in the EMN outputs is that of migrants and asylum seekers themselves (interviewee 4), which was also noted in relation to specific events (interviewee 34). In addition, due to the very short timeframe in which the EMN has to produce outputs to meet its mandate, academic research findings cannot usually be integrated into the outputs, according to interviewees (e.g., interviewees 4 & 7, see Part 2.3). The latter will be elaborated on in the next section. 2.3 Facilitating knowledge exchange: a bridge between researchers, practitioners, and policymakers Whereas the previous two sections examined factors that incentivize evidence engagement in general within the EMN, the last section turns to academic research specifically. While the value and importance of academic research have been recognized by interviewees, usage varies among NCPs, with many of the interviewees reporting that they do not regularly use academic research in the creation of the EMN outputs (e.g., interviewee 4, 5, 7, 10, 14, & 33). This has also been linked to the EMN’s working method, which is not based on primary research but consists largely of desk research and retrieving information from the national network (interviewee 4; EMN Luxembourg, n.d.). Furthermore, as the mandate of the EMN is to provide up-to-date information on migration-related development, interviewees explained that academic research is not produced in time to be included in the outputs (e.g., interviewees 4 & 7). Lastly, one NCP member argued that the EMN questionnaires at the basis of the EMN outputs are “practical to the core” or “legal to the core”. The interviewee adds that 18