by Alizia Kamani and Jovana Ostojic, Science Communicators
“Now that you’ve translated my research, it’s lost its nuance; I’m not comfortable having my name on it anymore.”
If you’ve ever worked in research communication, you may have heard some version of this. We certainly have – across emails, project meetings, and recently, while co-developing video scripts for the Horizon Funded FAiR project, led by Erasmus University Rotterdam..
It’s a common reaction from researchers, and one we genuinely understand.
When you’ve spent years developing a body of work, it can feel uncomfortable – even risky – to see it translated into a 60-second video script or a two-line tweet. Important nuance gets stripped away. Terminology gets adjusted. The tone becomes more conversational, more public-facing.
And suddenly, the work doesn’t sound like you anymore.You might begin to wonder, ‘’will this affect how my peers see my work?’’
So how do we find a shared language between researchers and science communicators? One that respects both accuracy and clarity, nuance and accessibility – and speaks to non-academic audiences with integrity?
A familiar question
We saw our FAiR-project consortium meeting as a chance to explore this question directly.
This project is required to deliver 12 short videos that explain FAiR research to a broader public. It means translating research video scripts that can be used on channels that reach a broader audience. And this requires researchers and science communicators to work together to find the language that respects accuracy and clarity, nuance and accessibility – and speaks to non-academic audiences with integrity.
Let’s visualise a bit:
Imagine you’re a science communicator handed a 20-page paper – dense, careful, precise, and asked to write a 2-minute video script about it. You search for the thread that makes it meaningful beyond the academic world. What is required is a specialised skill of intentional translation: making thoughtful decisions about tone, focus, and medium. It’s about identifying what matters most for a specific audience and finding ways to spark curiosity and meaningful dialogue. Your intent is not to simplify the science, but to shape it into something a teacher, a policymaker, or a curious student might understand.
Now imagine you’re a researcher who has spent 18 months collecting data, analysing results, and shaping a 20-page working paper. You’ve laboured over every sentence, debated the right wording, and preserved the nuance that gives your findings their meaning. Then, you’re handed a one-page script meant for a two-minute video – your work compressed into a soundbite.
This is a pivotal moment. It’s here that trust becomes essential – not just in science, but between the researcher and the communicator. This is the moment when together they must take co-ownership of the message, combining rigour with clarity, nuance with accessibility. It’s not about compromise; it’s about collaboration that respects the integrity of the work while making it meaningful to a wider audience.
It’s team science
At the FAiR consortium meeting, we had two days to find that balance. Researchers, policymakers, lawyers, advocacy officers, and science communicators came together – we didn’t just talk about deliverables – we built relationships and trust. That trust-building became central to success in our communication efforts.
The FAiR project is not just another academic initiative. It is a collective commitment by all of us on the project team to contribute to the understanding of one of the most politically sensitive and socially urgent issues in Europe: return migration policy.
Every person in the room brought not only expertise, but care – for the topic, for the people it impacts, and for making real-world policy change. And it’s what reminds us why we keep trying to get this communication/messaging balance right.
In a workshop on using AI to communicate research, we saw participants shift from hesitation to experimentation. For some, these tools were completely new – but by the end, they were drafting summaries, blogs, and even opinion pieces. Was everything perfect? No. But perfection wasn’t the point. The point was: let’s try. Together.
By the close of the meeting, we had co-written five scripts with seven researchers. Three more researchers were inspired to draft their own. We filmed seven of the twelve videos on-site and we look forward to sharing them later this year. We also found opportunities for communication outputs between the work packages.
Different audiences, different approaches
While terminology can vary across funders, Horizon Europe distinguishes communication, dissemination, and exploitation – each with a distinct purpose and audience. Successful outreach often layers these approaches to match messages with methods. And all three matter.
Communication is broader – it’s about raising awareness, especially among non-specialist audiences: the public, the media, the general public.
Dissemination focuses more on stakeholders: policymakers, fellow researchers, students, and professionals. It’s about sharing and validating knowledge.
Exploitation takes it further – it’s about applying insights and co-creating solutions with impact in mind.
Horizon Europe encourages layered outreach, and we embraced that within the FAiR project. Not every audience needs a full technical annex – but that doesn’t mean they don’t deserve a clear, credible explanation. And not every piece of research belongs in a tweet. With dialogue, co-creation, and mutual respect, we can convey complex ideas in ways that connect – and that stay true to the science.
The takeaway
Communication shouldn’t be an afterthought. It works best when it’s embedded within the research team from the start. That means making space for conversation, starting early, and co-creating where possible. This doesn’t mean every researcher must become a storyteller – but it does mean trusting the storytellers.
As communicators, we’ll keep listening. Because communication isn’t just about broadcasting – it’s about dialogue.
As researchers, we hope you’ll keep engaging with science communicators. Because when we collaborate deeply, what emerges isn’t a watered-down version of science or simplification – it’s amplification.
And maybe-just maybe-everyone will feel proud to put their name on it.
