The communication of science within the framework of European Union-funded research projects: Exploring practitioners’ experiences and perceptions

The ‘institutional mandate’ in PBSC

Unlike many other communication activities, PBSC constitutes a distinct configuration of science communication owing to the presence of a discernible ‘institutional mandate’ (per Fecher and Hebing, 2021; see also Rose et al., 2020). This mandate is enforced by funding agencies, which require grantees to conduct communication and public engagement initiatives during the course of their projects (Koivumäki and Wilkinson, 2020; Palmer and Schibeci, 2014). The European Commission, the focal funding body for this study, provides an illustrative example: Since the beginning of Horizon 2020, it has established the communication of the research actions as a legal obligation with which all beneficiaries must comply. This condition has been maintained under Horizon Europe. While other funding agencies may have adopted a less stringent approach (Palmer and Schibeci, 2014), the pressures on researchers to generate ‘societal impact’ are widespread (Loroño-Leturiondo and Davies, 2018; Norn et al., 2024)—and so too are funding agencies’ initiatives to propel science communication via their own funding programmes (Koivumäki and Wilkinson, 2020; Palmer and Schibeci, 2014).

Science communication is both enabled and constrained by virtue of the presence of the institutional mandate inherent in PBSC. The example of EU-funded projects illustrates how this mandate opens up multiple possibilities, especially when it is accompanied by material support for communication: several EU-funded projects under Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe include a separate Communication & Dissemination Work Package (C&D WP), through which multiple communication activities and actions undertaken over entire duration of the project are organised, coordinated and given general orientation. Especially in larger and better-resourced initiatives, communication actions may become highly sophisticated, including the creation of a ‘brand’ logo, colour palette and other visuals, as well as a particular communication style, recurrent themes and central arguments to be communicated. Importantly, C&D WPs are evaluated with respect to how they align with the ‘broader impacts’ of the project, which means that communication is expected to aid in advancing the project’s overarching goals. If funding agencies afford sufficient recognition and importance to them (Conceição et al., 2020; Weingart et al., 2021), more ‘dialogic’ or ‘participatory’ science communication initiatives are likewise possible within the institutional setting created by PBSC.

However, the ‘institutional mandate’ may also bring about constraints and misaligned incentives. Worthy of mention in this respect is that PBSC is premised on competitive grant funding, a funding mechanism whose distinguishing feature is that funding is allocated on a competitive basis—that is, through competition between research consortia and their projects (Franssen and de Rijcke, 2019; Reale, 2017). Projects must be both ‘excellent’ and ‘cost efficient’ to be awarded funds (Arboledas-Lérida, 2024), whereby grant funding creates an incentive for cost-cutting (Geuna, 2001) with ambivalent impacts for science communication: while a sound and compelling C&D WP may increase the chances of a project being awarded a grant, an opposing pressure to keep costs as low as possible may negatively impinge on the scope and ambition of communication activities. Therefore, there is a trade-off that all incumbent parties (research consortia, principal investigators, communication professionals themselves) must navigate.

In the case of the European Commission, it is well known that the ‘institutionalisation’ of science communication through grant funding already began with the Fifth FP (1998–2002) (Conceição et al., 2020). The novelty for Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe resides in the fact that the communication of the project and its outcomes constitutes a legal obligation applying across all missions or research pillars, funding calls, project types (Innovation Action, Coordination, Support Action, etc.), intermediary agencies (including, among others, the EUROATOM or the European Research Council (ERC)) and funding levels. In other words, at least in principle, all projects financed by the European Commission must submit and implement a separate C&D WP. The figures are telling: a total of 55,526 projects have been funded under Horizon 2020 (35,426) and Horizon Europe (20,100) until December 2025. ³ Even when allowance is made for factors that may hamper communication in some projects—such as research topic (e.g. defence-related projects) or project size—these numbers attest to the nonnegligible influence by the European Commission and the ‘institutional mandate’ created through funding programmes on the science communication landscape across Europe. Also relevant to the present concerns is that the ‘institutional mandate’ thus articulated leads to the proliferation and multiplicity of research projects with attached C&D WPs (see Koivumäki and Wilkinson, 2020).

Relationships between scientists and communicators in PBSC

While it is generally acknowledged that science communication has long since become an obligation for researchers (Miller, 2001)—and empirical work has shown that many researchers willingly embrace communication duties (Loroño-Leturiondo and Davies, 2018; Rose et al., 2020)—the dispute over who is primarily responsible for science communication—scientists or communication professionals—continues, with no end in sight (Banse et al., 2025; Biermann et al., 2025; Koivumäki and Wilkinson, 2020). The issue of responsibility attribution may become even more pronounced with the emergence and development of PBSC as a science communication practice.

The few studies that have explored the problem of the division and attribution of communication responsibilities in connection to PBSC have underscored that grant funding and the attached communication responsibilities may result in a ‘bypassing’, as it were, of ‘traditional’ communication structures in universities and research centres (Koivumäki and Wilkinson, 2020; see also Biermann et al., 2025). Not only are researchers more directly involved in communication activities in and through projects, but the communication requirements issued by funding agencies may result in additional and contradictory pressures for communication professionals as well (Koivumäki and Wilkinson, 2020), especially when responsibilities for both institutional and project communication overlap, their goals and missions are not properly aligned, and workloads increase (Koivumäki and Wilkinson, 2020). More generally, it has proved difficult to achieve a proper alignment of objectives and communication practices between scientists and communication professionals under the aegis of PBSC (Koivumäki and Wilkinson, 2020; see also Banse et al., 2025; Biermann et al., 2025).

My contention is that the tensions and conflicts between researchers and communication professionals obtaining in the case of PBSC generally could be magnified by several orders of magnitude within EU-funded projects, given the particular embedding of communication responsibilities in them. As indicated above, most projects are expected to develop a separate work package dedicated to informing audiences about the project and its outcomes, as well as the science underpinning the whole endeavour. This already drives a wedge between communication tasks and research proper. More importantly, in larger consortia, the C&D WP is often managed, or otherwise led, by a single partner. Communication partners are usually communication or marketing agencies (or, less frequently, communication departments of scientific organisations). In other words, C&D WPs display a neatly structured division of labour that is not to be found in other science communication activities or settings, especially when researchers also act as science communicators. ⁴ Moreover, this configuration entails that communicators depend on other partners to contribute to communication activities (e.g. by participating in interviews, by collaborating in specific tasks, distributing content), yet the inverse does not necessarily apply. The situation is potentially rife with frictions and conflicts, similar in some respects to other contexts equally marked by ‘uncooperative researchers’ impinging on communicators’ duties (Biermann et al., 2025), but also possibly posing unique challenges on its own.

Funding in PBSC

Funding is a critical factor in science communication activities. In their multicountry analysis, Entradas and Santos (2021) show that funding is positively associated with the communication activities undertaken by research institutes across all the countries studied and for the three science communication formats considered. In turn, Wilkinson et al. (2023) find that the lack of resources is one of the main deterrents to engaging in science communication activities for science communication actors. It can therefore be expected that funding represents an issue in the case of PBSC as well. Despite its commitment to fostering science communication through grant funding, the European Commission has allocated relatively limited resources to science communication under both Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe (Conceição et al., 2020). ⁵

Yet there is some ambivalence concerning the relationship between funding and the communication activities in EU-funded projects. For the 50 top projects per level of funding led by Spanish institutions under Horizon 2020 (up to 2018), Gertrúdix et al. (2021) found no relationship between funding and communication activities. However, for Horizon Europe projects also led by Spanish institutions (up to December 2023), Arboledas-Lérida (2025) identified a positive and statistically significant relationship. Since these macroanalyses have not clarified the impact of funding on the communication of EU-funded projects, additional insights can be gained by directly investigating the perceptions of communication professionals of how funding conditions their daily practices and the range of communication activities they can undertake. It should also not be forgotten that PBSC creates contradictory incentives with respect to communication work packages (see ‘The “institutional mandate” in PBSC’): while a sound and compelling C&D WP may be beneficial at the stage of project evaluation, the need to be ‘cost efficient’ (Geuna, 2001) and to keep costs low across the board introduces a disincentive. There are many more dimensions imbricated in the question of funding for communication activities than merely the total volume of funding.

Personal and societal benefits of PBSC

Over the years, the attention of science communication scholars has partially shifted from the communication practices of scientists to those of professional science communicators (e.g. Biermann et al., 2025; Davies, 2020; Koivumäki and Wilkinson, 2020; Wilkinson et al., 2023), in what has been described as the ‘organisational turn in science communication’ (Schäfer and Fähnrich, 2020). Undoubtedly, the proximate reason for this shift is the growing professionalisation of science communication activities that has taken place (Trench, 2017). Most of the work conducted along these lines, however, has concentrated on professional science communicators at universities and academic research centres (Biermann et al., 2025; Koivumäki and Wilkinson, 2020; for a partial exception, see Wilkinson et al., 2023). The group of PBSC experts with whom we are concerned has not been properly addressed. We thus possess virtually no understanding of their motivations to engage in this science communication practice, nor of how they perceive the impacts—both positive and negative—of their own work on society.

Concerning this latter aspect, Davies (2020) reported that many science communication scholars and educators she interviewed were very positive in their appraisal of science communication’s function in society. Concerning the societal role that these professionals attribute to science communication, Davies (2020) identifies six categories: ‘Accountability’, ‘Pragmatic roles’, ‘Cultural benefits’, ‘Enhancement of democracy’, ‘Promotion’ and ‘Economic functions’. My work aims to test whether such perceptions are likewise generalisable to the case of practitioners involved in the communication of EU-funded projects. Gaining a deeper understanding of this issue is both timely and appropriate, given that prior scholarship has warned that the multiplication of research projects with attached communication plans may have detrimental effects (see Koivumäki and Wilkinson, 2020)—a far cry from all those perceptions of science communication as inherently virtuous—so that there may develop a potential disconnect between perceived and actual societal impacts of PBSC.

Throughout this section, it has been elucidated that PBSC represents a distinct institutional setting of the ‘social conversation around science’, distinguishable by the following characteristics: (1) the existence of an institutional mandate imposed by funding agencies; (2) a structured relationship between scientists and communication professionals, underpinned by an extensive division of labour and (3) funding as a multifaceted issue. It has also been indicated that we need to gain knowledge of the perceived benefits both for society and for PBSC experts stemming from PBSC, as well as how they assess the institutional setting for science communication created by funding agencies through grant funding.

On the basis of this theoretical reconstruction of PBSC as a science communication practice, the following research questions are addressed:

Personal and societal benefits of PBSC

Interviewees report a wide range of motivations and personal benefits arising from their involvement in the communication of EU-funded projects, of which three stand out: (1) the opportunity to learn about science, (2) the relationships established within research consortia and (3) the possibility of acquiring, developing, and/or implementing communication skills. The following three quotations illustrate each of these categories:

I kind of feel like working in European projects, there are so many different fields. So, it’s like every time you meet a partner, you’re talking with them, it’s like learning something new. (. . .) For example, AI healthcare, the technical part—is not something I will get in touch with in my daily life. So, it’s really interesting to learn about that. And it’s also very inspiring. (Interviewee 09, SC Manager)

[The] most positive I always found in European projects was the, . . . this sounds a bit cliché maybe, but the team spirit that I found in consortia. You have all these people from different companies and different countries who speak different languages. Also, companies with different interests, sometimes. (. . .) But I always really found it very admiring how these people [could] work together towards a common goal, each using their own expertise. (Interviewee 16, SC Manager)

And, also, [as] communication is creative, I would say, so there’s always a part where you can be creative, and so you can explain the same point, concept, but in another way, from another perspective with a different format. So that’s, I think, very, very, very positive and very nice to do in science communication. (Interviewee 13, SC Manager)

In terms of the actual or potential benefits for society arising from the communication of EU-funded projects, responses were coded according to the roles of science communication identified by Davies (2020). Instrumental benefits (in Davies’ terminology, Pragmatic roles) took precedence over others. The main social benefit of the communication of EU-funded projects, to use Interviewee 03’s words, is that citizens can keep up with ‘what is happening at the European level—all those researchers that are being carried out’ (Interviewee 03, SC Manager). Democracy- and governance-related benefits (in Davies’ account, Enhancing democracy) and Culture are likewise mentioned often. Cultural benefits are framed by interviewees in ostensibly more mundane terms than the experts surveyed by Davies, foremost in connection with education and scientific literacy.

It’s important that people who do not have scientific literacy, . . . people who work [and] did not have the opportunity to study, and who work in something completely not related to science—it is important to bring scientific literacy to these people. (Interviewee 21, Project manager)

Finally, Accountability emerges more as a ‘crosscutting issue’ than a single proposition concerning the potential benefits of PBSC. The theme Tax-payers’ money recurred throughout the interviews and across the most diverse contexts, highlighting how deeply internalised the connection between the communication of science and the publicly funded nature of research projects at the EU level is among PBSC experts. For instance, Interviewee 25 regards as the most positive aspect of her involvement in EU-funded projects the opportunity ‘to showcase really widely and on different communication channels, how the public money is being spent’ (Interviewee 25, SC Manager). Interviewee 14, in turn, considers that a commitment to a wise expenditure of public funding informs her company’s strategy as C&D WP partner:

[W]e’re bound to be as cost efficient as humanly possible, and it’s something that we [i.e., her company] take very seriously. So, it’s not like I’m saying we should be getting more money. We’re doing this because we believe in what we’re doing, not because it’s profitable. (Interviewee 14, Other)

Challenges in PBSC

Prior work has shown that the relationship between scientists and communication professionals is a contentious issue across many contexts of professional science communication (e.g. Banse et al., 2025; Biermann et al., 2025; Koivumäki and Wilkinson, 2020). This question also emerges in my dataset. The following quote captures particularly well the reality that many interviewees may be facing:

The most challenging aspects is definitely engaging the consortium. It’s not engaging the stakeholders, it’s the internal part. Because most of the partners are not committed at all with the people that are managing this type of work packages. So, you need to be sending emails all the time, asking for feedback, asking for activities that they develop. The internal part is the most challenging one. (Interviewee 18, Head of communications unit)

In this excerpt, as in several others found in the transcripts, difficulties with uncooperative partners are framed in connection with these partners’ attitudes towards the communication of projects. These tensions can be better interpreted in relation to the complex situation that PBSC experts may face owing to the division of labour and the position of the C&D WP at arm’s length from research: communicators require the collaboration of researchers to carry out their tasks, but the latter may be unwilling to be involved owing to a narrow focus on their research, lack of time, lack of interest or perceived lack of skills. Besides, research partners are not as dependent on communication professionals to develop their work packages, so there is an asymmetric interdependence between the two collectives. Unsurprisingly, then, many interviewees were of the opinion that science communication is not valued by consortia, or not sufficiently so. Among this particular group of interviewees, roughly half of them likewise contended that the relationship with other partners constitute a challenge to them.

There is a further twist to this complex situation. Some interviewees noted that these negative predispositions towards the C&D WP may be informed by the very division of labour within research projects, and how the latter engenders certain expectations concerning responsibility for these activities:

It is difficult to make them really contribute because sometimes they probably think, ‘Okay, there is another partner that only does science communication’. Because this is [NAME OF THE ORGANISATION]’s role. We only do science communication. (. . .) So maybe they tend to think that that is enough, that they don’t need to do more because there’s already a partner that does that—which is probably partly true, I would say. But [NAME OF THE ORGANISATION] always says that (. . .), yes, we are doing communication, but every partner [should] also help amplify impact that we can actually reach. (Interviewee 13, SC Manager)

In other words, my analysis suggests that the tensions and conflicts emerging within the context of EU-funded projects between scientists and PBSC experts are not rooted solely in scientists’ preexisting dispositions and preferences with regard to science communication. Such predispositions are an important factor, yet they can only become actualised, as it were, through a very particular communication setting in which research and the communication of science evolve in relative isolation, and in which researchers’ lenient attitudes towards communication do not substantially affect the success of the project in scientific or technological terms. Therefore, when analysing the concrete attribution of communication responsibilities between communication professionals and scientists (e.g. Banse et al., 2025), heed must be paid to the specificities of the social division of labour in which the collaboration between them is rooted.

Disputes with uncooperative research or research partners are not the only challenge that PBSC experts confront in their daily activities. Table 2 provides a summary of the main challenges reported, along with their definitions and two examples per category to illustrate the nature of the problem identified.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Other challenges in the communication of EU-funded projects.

Challenge	Definition	Examples
Relative to structural factors	This category includes all those ‘challenges’ or ‘difficulties’ concerning the present configuration of EU-funded projects, the policy orientations embedded into grant funding, or broader dimensions of science and technology policy.	‘And I’m experiencing [limitations] also in other projects, but I would say that [NAME OF THE PROJECT] is such a big project, [has] a large consortium, and is also very limited in time because we only have like three years. They wanted to be very agile, to be honest, and very quick. But, of course, this limits our communication activities’ (Interviewee 02, SC Manager). ‘I see it also in industry projects like, . . . when you have industry projects, it’s the IPR [Intellectual Property Rights] regulations and IPR issues that are still kind of sometimes limiting—limiting the science communication you want to do, because we always have to go back and have approval on it: Is it okay if I communicate that in that content, or is there any constraints in it? Do I have to delete something?’ (Interviewee 01, SC Manager).
Relative to the communication of projects	This category includes all those ‘challenges’ or ‘difficulties’ relative to the communication activities of EU-funded projects themselves, or aspects connected to communication more largely that impacted negatively on interviewees’ work.	‘[T]he most challenging aspect for me, . . . there [are] two of them in my project. First, we need to somehow address policy makers, both local and maybe a bit broadly [NATIONALITY] policymakers. And this is something that we are actually struggling to do. (. . .) And the other thing is actually to address the European Union communication channels, like CORDIS, like Horizon Magazine’ (Interviewee 12, SC Manager). ‘[W]hat I’ve missed a little bit was some clear strategy behind it. They entrusted me that—I had full responsibility and I did what I could. I tried to do my best, but I couldn’t follow any guidelines or anything like that because this wasn’t really defined. Of course, our project defined certain goals and we want to use this and that media, but it leaves a lot of space for interpretation’ (Interviewee 8, Other).
Relative to working conditions	This category includes all those ‘challenges’ or ‘difficulties’ that point to the working conditions under which interviewees undertake their communication responsibilities (including the workload).	‘The first one I would say is like the most basic one. Even if we do have like resources from the European programmes, we have finite resources in terms of personnel and money and everything [in] our research institutions. And sometimes we find that, depending on the call, maybe we do have, I don’t know, like six projects to attend to, or maybe we only have two and we are only limited in the number of people working for that’ (Interviewee 02, SC Manager). Interviewer: ‘Is it challenging for you to manage this workload, these number of projects simultaneously?’ Interviewee: ‘Yes, it is. It’s challenging because in my case they were all different actions. (. . .) So this is one point. Another thing is having deadlines, for example, on the same month. Or they are very close to each other. If the projects are at different stages, you can, . . . but two endings [at the same time], that was insane. That I will not recommend to people because end of project, . . . it can be quite hectic. And, now, you double the work, plus ongoing [projects]’ (Interviewee 24, SC Manager) a .
Other challenges	This category includes all other ‘challenges’, ‘difficulties’, or ‘limits’ that are not included under any of the previous categories (including Relative to researchers/partners).	‘Because the reviewers [of the European Commission] are normally from scientific fields. You don’t have reviewers from communication fields (. . .). [N]ormally everybody has an opinion about communication. Everybody is an expert in communication, even if it is the reviewer’ (Interviewee 19, Head of Communications unit). ‘I can give you one challenge that has been taking place now, which is the X [social media platform]. So we take for granted the social media, it’s important for communication. No one questions this, but the way X has been changed since Elon Musk bought it and the questionable premises behind it has been bringing lots of discussions within the projects, because it does not align with the projects view or the projects like goals. (. . .) So this is one thing that has been happening. So how much can we use that social media?’ (Interviewee 06, SC Manager).

a

At a previous point during the conversation, Interviewee 24 mentioned that she had recently been managing up to four different research projects, two of which had concluded a few days before the interview.

Funding for the communication of EU-funded projects

Interviewees were divided on whether funding, or the available budget for C&D WPs in EU-funded projects, represents an issue. There was nevertheless a prevalence of the view that funding is not problematic, and that the budget allocated to communication activities is generally satisfactory:

I always found the budget to be quite accurate, yes. If there was a big project where you were expected, . . . it was agreed to reach out to a large audience, set up many stakeholder engagement activities, like workshops, events—I feel the budget was there. (Interviewee 16, SC Manager)

However, inductive coding also uncovered several dimensions pertaining to funding that are not reducible to the available budget as such. Crucially, several interviewees noted that allocated funding is merely sufficient to do the ‘standard thing’, while more impactful or experimental forms of science communication may be beyond reach owing to funding constraints. For instance, elaborating on his views on funding—which he does not regard as an issue—Interviewee 10 commented,

It would be nice to do more hands-on stuff. We do get to go conferences and that sort of things. But that’s mostly within a certain academic bubble. So, it would be nice to have the budget to do slightly more experimental things, or something a bit more, . . . perhaps engaging to [the] general public than just conference events, perhaps. (Interviewee 10, SC Manager)

These considerations underscore that the prevailing approach to communication activities in EU-funded projects—mainly social media activities and websites, along with public events with selected stakeholders—is partially shaped by the available budget. Funding thus poses a structural limitation on the development of potentially more impactful or engaging forms of science communication and the degree of innovation possible within PBSC (see Biermann et al., 2025).

Two interrelated secondary themes relative to funding that were also identified are the importance of the project proposal and the grant agreement for the subsequent development of the C&D WP, alongside the oftentimes cumbersome process of budget negotiation that communication partners must engage in in order to secure a level of funding consonant with the objectives being sought. The following excerpts capture each of these two dimensions:

It depends on who wrote the proposal, how the proposal was written. (. . .) But that budget has never been an issue for us when it comes to communication [and] dissemination. We’ve had enough personal. But that’s because good thought went into the beginning of the project when they were writing the proposal. (Interviewee 17, Other)

[W]hat I see from consortia that have asked [NAME OF THE ORGANISATION] to contribute to a proposal is that it is always a bit of a struggle. On the one hand, they see only the research as the main work to be done, and then they kind of try to . . . when you hand in your estimated budget, what you need in the proposal—it’s a lot of time, like a discussion. (. . .) Always in a discussion. (Interviewee 01, SC Manager)

A final theme pertaining to funding is underbudgeting. By this term, I mean the practice of planning, at the proposal stage, a series of communication activities whose viability may be compromised due to the allocation of insufficient budget. While this may result from inadequate planning in some instances, the interviewees who noted this problem also pointed to more structural factors—primarily, the need to keep costs low in order to increase the chances of being awarded funds. When discussing funding, Interviewee 17 (Other) provides a short but exemplary account of the practice of underbudgeting and its main driver, referring to a project whose C&D WP was led by an organisation different from hers:

[A]t that point, they’re promising stars, and with the least amount of budget. It’s not also their fault because they want to make sure that they get the budget. But now with feedback, the organisation knows better that: ‘Please, you can promise the world, but please make sure you have enough budget for that, and don’t promise things that you can’t deliver’. (Interviewee 17, Other)

Interviewee 19 (Head of communications department) personally experienced the issue of underbudgeting on more than one occasion. He and the communications team he supervises were involved—without prior notification—in projects whose C&D WP had no dedicated funding:

Scientists ask sometime companies (. . .) to write or to support the writing of proposals. So, you got a very well written work package. And then at a certain point, you were involved in the project—without you knowing it. Sometimes they were writing that the science communication office of the institution will support this with no resources. In the beginning, it was a kind of confusing situation, but I started to say ‘No’. (Interviewee 19, Head of communications unit)

It must be stressed that the companies providing professional services in grant proposal writing and related activities to which Interviewee 19 is referring assess their success (on which future profitability prospects hinge) in terms of the number of grants awarded to their clients—thereby creating an extra incentive for underbudgeting. That said, Interviewee 19 does not place the blame on competitive grant funding per se, but rather on the insufficient importance afforded to communication within EU-funded projects and on the subordinate position of communication professionals within research consortia.

Interviewee 21 (Project manager) is also engaged in the C&D WP of a project that she also oversees in her capacity as project manager. According to her testimony, communication activities were not allocated any funding at the proposal stage, and the communications unit of her institution was not involved in the planning process. This may represent the most extreme case of underbudgeting owing to poor planning, which is also how Interviewee 21 frames it. However, the project nevertheless succeeded in all evaluation stages and was awarded the grant, a fact which suggests that either the underbudgeting was not noted by reviewers or, if noted, it may have had a positive effect on the project’s chances of securing funds. It is therefore not far-fetched to state that the C&D WP was not assigned funds, probably because the perceived benefits of proceeding thus outweighed the risks.

Broader views on PBSC

Many interviewees hold negative opinions about current communication practices in EU-funded projects. When assessing communication activities in projects in which they are not involved, the most frequent characterisation was that they tend to be ‘homogeneous’—with projects being ‘indistinguishable’ from one another—representing the ‘standard’ approach or a ‘bare minimum’. Other problems identified include that the choice of communication partners may be guided more by inertia and personal relations than by a proper assessment of all the available options, that communication teams or professionals often lack enough training or experience and that communication activities are generally poorly adapted either to specific publics or to newer trends in social communication more broadly (e.g. the limited uptake of social media platforms such as TikTok).

Notably, only a minority of interviewees frame their negative perceptions of the communication of research projects by other PBSC experts in relation to more general or structural factors—that is, the factors that they themselves acknowledge as constraints on their own work. I identified a tension between these broader structural factors, on the one hand, and the attribution of responsibilities for pitfalls in PBSC to individual communicators, C&D WP leaders or research consortia, on the other. This tension is particularly salient in the following excerpt. Interviewee 20 (SC Manager) indicated that the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for communication expected by the European Commission (i.e. number of visits to the website, blog posts, articles produced, etc.) may potentially derail efforts towards more public engagement-oriented initiatives. When invited to further elaborate on her views on this issue, she contends:

You just make campaigns that you know they will reach as many followers as possible, . . . for example, [if] you should target local groups and try to make an impact in a local group, you just try to make it as general and as widespread as possible to get as many followers as possible. (. . .) So, if you don’t have enough time to do the work, you just do what gives . . . so that you can fulfil the requirements. (. . .) And only if you have the time for it, then you go beyond that, and actually create impact on the websites, which we then do as soon as we have time. But I think if you’re not a very dedicated science communicator, you’re just going to try to fulfil the KPIs. (Interviewee 20, SC Manager)

In other words, Interviewee 20 acknowledges that there are factors beyond PBSC experts’ purview limiting the degree of creativity and impact feasible in communication campaigns for EU-funded projects. These constraints notwithstanding, she also believes that the ultimate responsibility remains with communicators themselves, who must be passionate and dedicated in order to go beyond the constraints posed by KPIs and explore novel ways of making an impact.

Probing further into the interviewees’ perceptions of PBSC and the communication of EU-funded projects, and drawing on Koivumäki and Wilkinson (2020), PBSC experts were asked whether they perceive downsides or unintended effects arising from the multiplication of EU-funded projects with attached C&D WPs. A minority of them did not report viewing any particular problem in this regard. Interviewee 17 is possibly expressing the prevailing opinion within this group in the clearest manner:

[T]here’s no downside. I mean, I don’t see any downside in communicating science at all. I think the more, the better. (Interviewee 17, Other)

Others, by contrast, were much more critical of how the European Commission and other funding agencies leverage competitive grant funding to foster science communication. Various downsides are identified as arising from the proliferation of projects aiming to communicate their results and their underlying science, including competition between projects for limited attention; ⁶ an excess of information which may, in turn, result in a lack of impact; the misallocation or misuse of resources; and the presence of misaligned objectives. The latter is often addressed in connection with the fact that the communication is currently mandatory in all projects funded under Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe, on the one hand, and with the kind of KPIs that are expected, or otherwise favoured, by the European Commission, on the other.

One Interviewee was particularly critical of the present configuration of science communication within the framework of EU-funded projects and raised concerns regarding the usefulness of the current approach by the European Commission:

Most of the scientific projects that you have in the European commission nowadays—by my point of view, don’t benefit at all from user packages of science communication. Because they don’t do science communication, they do formal communication. And most of time nobody cares about that communication. (. . .) So, I think there is a mess on this producing garbage, lots of garbage, and it takes a lot of resources. (Interviewee 19, Head of Communication office)

By way of synthesis, Interviewee 14 threads together several themes emerging from the discussion of the interviewees’ perceptions of PBSC and the potential downsides arising from the particular manner in which the European Commission seeks to foster science communication:

I mean, Europe is so oversaturated with projects—every day more. I don’t mean oversaturated in a bad sense, it’s just, . . . it’s a crowded pond. And human attention, . . . you’re competing in a sense for human attention, for people’s views, for people’s clicks and likes and whatever. And attention spans are getting shorter and shorter. So, making your voice heard can be really difficult. It takes a lot. It takes having the experience of having done it before, being able to pivot when something is not working, just not giving up and saying: ‘Yes, this newsletter is only reaching 15 people, but at least it’s reaching 15 people’. (Interviewee 14, Other)

According to this participant, the present configuration of PBSC results in a multiplication of projects (‘oversaturation’), which in turn leads to competition among projects. This proliferation has a negative impact on communicators’ work (‘So, making your voice heard can be really difficult’), while these professionals are constrained by the commitments set out in advance and reflected in KPIs (‘clicks, and likes and whatever’) —leading to frustration when they cannot be met (‘at least, [this newsletter] is reaching 15 people’).

Further considerations

This section briefly explores two topics that emerged during some of the interviews, and which have been selected given the paucity of research and/or theorisation concerning them in the extant science communication literature. It is argued that both dimensions represent promising avenues for future investigation on the intricate realities of PBSC and the funding mechanism undergirding this distinct setting for science communication. At the same time, I caution readers that the following remarks are exploratory and tentative, and that more research along these lines is needed.