PurposeThis paper reports on research exploring the intersections between researchers and communication professionals' perspectives on the objectives, funders and organizational influences on their science communication practices.Design/methodology/approachExamining one context, the inter-organizational BCDC Energy Research project based at five different research organizations in Finland, this paper presents data from semi-structured interviews with 17 researchers and 15 communication professionals.FindingsThe results suggest that performance-based funding policies that drive the proliferation of large-scale research projects can create challenges. In particular, a challenge arises in generating a shared sense of identity and purpose amongst researchers and communication professionals. This may have unintended negative impacts on the quality and cohesiveness of the science communication which occurs.Research limitations/implicationsThe study was exploratory in nature and focuses on one organizational and institutional environment. Further research with a wider number of projects, as well as funders, would be conducive to a greater understanding of the issues involved.Practical implicationsOn a practical level, this research suggests that the creation of clearer communications awareness and guidance may be helpful in some large-scale projects, particularly involving broad numbers of organizations, individual researchers and funders.Originality/valueThis is one of the first studies examining the perspectives of both researchers and communication professionals working over one project, drawing together a range of different institutional and disciplinary perspectives. The results highlight the importance of the influences of funding on science communication aims, assumptions, cultures and structures. The article articulates the need for further research in this area.

In the changing science communication landscape, researchers may govern their public science-society relations through the social media connections at their fingertips. However, digital media outreach may create challenges for researchers and cause changes in the communication professionals' role. The aim of this qualitative interview study was to enhance understanding of the challenges in the rarely explored organizational collaboration between researchers and communication professionals. The results identify ambiguous duties and responsibilities, as well as blurring boundaries of occupational roles and coordination challenges in content production.

In contemporary media discourses, researchers may be perceived to communicate something they do not intend to, such as coldness or irrelevance. However, researchers are facing new responsibilities concerning how popular formats used to present science will impact science’s cultural authority (Bucchi, 2017). Currently, there is limited research on the microlevel practices of digital science communication involving researchers as actors. Therefore, this qualitative study explores how digital academic discourse practices develop, using the tweeting and blogging of researchers involved in a multidisciplinary renewable energy research project as a case. The results of a thematic analysis of interviews with researchers (n = 17) suggests that the researchers’ perceptions form a scale ranging from traditional to progressively adjusted practices, which are labelled ‘informing,’ ‘anchoring,’ ‘luring,’ and ‘maneuvering.’ These imply an attempt to diminish the gap between science and the public. The interviewees acknowledge that scientific facts may not be interesting and that they need captivating means that are common in the use of new media, such as buzzwords and clickbait. It appears that trials and experimentation with hybrid genres helped the researchers to distinguish the contours of digital academic discourses. The implications support suggestions to broaden the trajectories of expertise and communication, including issues of culture and identity, trust, and the relevance of science. It is argued that scientists’ embrace of new media channels will refine some articulations of the mediatization processes, and these findings support recent suggestions that mediatization could also be conceptualized as a strategic resource.

The changing media landscape and proliferation of social media potentially increase agency amongst researchers to communicate individually. It also points to a need for studying science communication at an organisational level to understand how science communication activities can be collectively organised to have a substantial impact. Despite these changes, there are ongoing questions regarding the perceived value of science communication and the ways in which it can receive institutional support in credit-driven academic cultures. Therefore, this study set out to explore how incentives relate to researchers’ communication activity and how these can be influenced by digital communication contexts. This article presents a qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with 17 researchers and 15 communication professionals in Finland. Results indicate that academic leaders are in the key position to support organisational science communication culture, and their acknowledgement for science communication can be more effective than encouragement from in-house communication staff. This suggests that there may be a key gap vis-à-vis training in science communication and engagement which is targeted towards scientific and organisational leaders. The results also imply there is enduring value in communication activities featuring in periodical performance evaluation and that analytic data from digital media endeavours can form an intrinsic reward.

No abstract