with stakeholders, particularly with policy actors (interviewees 9, 10, 13, 19, 21, 23, & 33). For instance, one participant explained that while they include the opinions of civil society and other stakeholders in their outputs to present a balanced picture, they do not believe that it would be a good idea for them to make policy recommendations. “Maybe we can say that we are quite successful with some part of our work because we have a long-term relationship of confidence and trust with national stakeholders”, however, “if we include recommendations for the ministry, I’m afraid it will not be the same kind of relationship” (interviewee 21). Another interviewee explained in relation to the Ad-hoc query mechanism that “if you put clear [policy] guidelines on what to do with this information or recommendations, it would […] put restrictions on what you can ask and how you can ask [this], and I think it would create […] hurdles for those national stakeholders to use that system” because policy actors would feel pushed to act based on the recommendations. Neutrality therefore "allows those stakeholders to use those systems more freely" (interviewee 19). Thus, the interview data suggest that the ‘neutrality’ of the EMN may help to remove some barriers to engagement with national authorities, particularly given the sensitivity of some migration issues. In this regard, one NCP member noted that governments feel more comfortable engaging with the EMN because "we don't do finger-pointing" (interviewee 13; echoed by interviewee 11). This can make the EMN appear as a trustworthy intermediary to some stakeholders, including policy actors. Interviewee 8, who works in policymaking, stated that: “We trust in EMN […] that we get the real information, […] the real data […] the EMN is neutral. They present every Member State on equal grounds. They present the real data that has been given by the Member States. And it is not acceptable to have […] another agenda apart from the European, apart from what the […] regulation dictates” (Interview 8). Thus, the EMN outputs provide a comparative overview of the situation in the Member States and Observer Countries, without providing critical analysis or conclusions, such as policy recommendations. By identifying and synthesizing existing information and formatting and disseminating it in an easily digestible format, the EMN can increase the accessibility of information for users, thereby arguably acting as a kind of knowledge broker (Kislov et al., 2017; Caduff et al., 2023, citing Nutley et al., 2007). In addition, the EMN ‘neutral’ approach appears to facilitate evidence engagement with some stakeholders, notably policy actors, and can make the network appear to be a trustworthy provider of reliable information to some stakeholders (e.g., interviewees 8 & 17). According to Gluckman et al., being perceived as a neutral intermediary that does not advocate for policy preferences can play an important factor in facilitating knowledge brokering (Gluckman et al., 2021). 17