Given the multiple objectives of the Platform and the different approaches to achieving them, ranging from the production of outputs on statelessness to the organization of events and trainings, it is relevant to identify the evidence needs and gaps of Platform participants, as well as the factors that incentivize evidence engagement. Therefore, the following sections are addressed: • What are evidence needs and gaps in knowledge expressed by stakeholders? • How does the Platform contribute to evidence engagement on statelessness? 4.3.1 Evidence Needs in the Platform on Statelessness To begin with, this section addresses the question of what evidence needs and gaps in knowledge remain around statelessness. It has been observed that there was no uniformity in the gaps in knowledge and evidence expressed by interview participants. A key knowledge gap frequently mentioned is reliable data on the number of stateless people in Europe (interviewees 1, 10 & 13). One challenge regarding this is that there is no harmonized way of determining statelessness across EU Member States, for instance, due to diverging definitions of statelessness (interviewees 1, 10 & 13). A further gap in knowledge that was identified was understanding how statelessness determination procedures work in practice, especially during the asylum procedure. Knowledge of this is largely based on desk research, however, actors miss insights into the practical aspects of it (interviewee 1). A recurrent theme across the majority of interviews was a predominant interest in practical insights as opposed to more theoretical academic work. For instance, when asked what they would commission research on regarding statelessness, many responded with very practical information needs (interviewees 1, 2, 10, 11, & 15). One NCP member, for example, stated that: “Well, I’d focus on practical things [...] for example, what are […] practical experiences with establishing […] the burden of proof, [...] the practical constraints that are there at proving that somebody is stateless [....]. The practical side. I mean, I think that's the most important thing. [...] You could have potential theories about vulnerability and psychological trauma and so on [and] so forth. We know all this. What we're looking for here is practically to encourage the establishment of statelessness determination procedures. So, it's a very nuts and bolts thing.” (interviewee 10) Another interviewee stated that academic research is relevant if it has a “pragmatical” and “technical approach” that can be applied in practice, however, if academic researchers “begin talking about the philosophy of statelessness, that will not help anybody” (interviewee 13). However, this interviewee added that they would be interested in research on the mental health impacts of statelessness, but according to 26