How to improve science communication in large (European) research projects and consortia

If you deal with large research projects involving many partners, you may have wondered how you can arrange the communication plan in such a way that it results in proper science communication, while also pleasing the funding agency. The key is in taking science communication seriously, and this blog will give you some ideas of how to do that.

It started off with a question I’ve had in my mind for years. The Online Scientist built a lot of websites for large projects and consortia, and was partner in one of them. We even helped evaluate some European calls, so over the years we obtained various perspectives on these Dissemination-Exploitation-Communication or ‘DEC-plans.’ The question that came up was: why is there so much variation in how these projects arrange their science communication, and why is it often suboptimal?

What goes wrong with the communication of big research projects?

With so much public funds flowing into European projects, it would make sense to put some effort into the science communication, right? Right, except that this is not a given. The issue is twofold; on one hand, researchers do not always reserve enough funds for adequate science communication in their project budgets and the EU does not really require them to do so – there is no set amount of budget that needs to be spend on communication and dissemination.

On the other hand, even projects that do budget for science communication often don’t gain much traction from a communication perspective, mainly due to a lack of expertise within the consortia on how to efficiently communicate and reach stakeholders. And the reality is: while many of the participating organisations have marketing and communication departments, these are often not geared towards project-related science communication. Or they simply don’t have the time and skills.

A bit of history to understand why this is…

When The Online Scientist started in 2012, the European Commission (EC) set the bar quite low for communication plans. It stimulated mostly ‘checkbox communication’ where you could say your goal is to accrue 1000 followers on Twitter for your project account, and that was considered ambitious and more than sufficient.

But thankfully, this has changed over time. Nowadays, the EC puts much more value on creating impact and therefore requires impact strategies, supported by concrete dissemination, exploitation and communication plans with realistic, yet sophisticated key performance indicators. Though there will aways be a baseline communication effort consisting of f.i. a website and some social media, it’s much more important to think about which measures, goals and activities you’re using and why – in other words: who your audience is – and how many users or recipients would be realistic. We all know that it’s better to have 10 followers that mean a lot to the uptake of your results, than to have a 1000 that don’t care (let alone bots).

Because of this incremental change, for a long time it was possible for the project managers and work package leaders to keep up and do this – even though technically this was not up to them. Sometimes it’s picked up by a third party like a professional organization or patient organization. But with increasingly high standards for science communication, this situation is becoming untenable and it needs a proper long-term solution.

What does the solution look like?

I’ve been discussing this with professionals close to me – for example Tim Hiert, involved with Connection Lab in Maastricht – and there are two routes that can be identified to streamline science communication for large projects. They both have to do with getting a grip on what is happening, and then using that grip for forward thinking and planning. While both routes require managerial action, the first one aims at creating the right kind of expertise to execute the plans, while the second one aims at creating an environment in which these tasks are taken seriously.

Aligning the various plans from a content and expertise perspective.

1. Create an overview of how much funding comes in for science communication (as part of the impact plans, for example).
2. Then, create room (FTEs) for the execution of these plans. And, using those funds, hire the right kind of experts if needed. This also creates new career opportunities for scientists who are looking for a different focus than research or teaching.

Taking control over the plans from a managerial perspective.

1. Scrutinize the successful, awarded impact plans and see if you can find a common thread in them. Then, move upstream and create an overarching impact strategy that informs these plans in the future.
2. Integrate the awarded project plans into the plans of chair groups or departments, and create deliverables that track their progress. This makes science communication a serious part of their workload.

New roles are emerging

If you add these two together, interesting things emerge! For example, by exerting control over impact plans and pursuing synergy between them, executing them becomes more efficient. It also means it’s possible to hire a new person with the right kind of expertise.

I learned that at various institutions in the Netherlands new roles are emerging that bridge communication and research office, and I got involved in setting up one of them. The details may vary, but the big picture is similar: by combining expertise from the communication department and the knowledge about running big projects, the new role will combine the best of both worlds in the space that this focused funds will create.

European Commission happy, project managers happy, communication department happy – but most of all, society will be happy with better science communication.

***

With thanks to the inspiration I’ve drawn from conversations with Tim Hiert (Connection Lab) and others from the field.