Monthly Archives: March 2017

Social Media: an inevitable part of communication in European projects

The rising importance of technology in our lives has led to more connected people to online information, not only limited to computers, but also to smartphones and tablets. This makes us face an audience that is connected 24/7 and has the expectation to be continuously updated.

The audience of European projects is no exception in this respect: projects, their coordinators and partners as well as the European Commission and its Agencies are increasingly active on social networks. Social media is a very powerful tool to disseminate information and to effectively let people know about the activities the projects are carrying out, creating networks among similar actors and generating virtual communities interested in specific topics.

Why is a website not enough anymore?

Having a consolidated online presence is vital and is part of the success of a project, especially when it comes to dissemination and communication of results.

A website is indeed the supporting pillar of the online image of a project, so building it in a clear and engaging way is very important. Every social media channel will contain a reference to the site itself as a sign of reliability and trust. However, the website is a one-way communication channel that gives you information when you open it. Earlier in FP6 and FP7, a project website would have been sufficient as an online communication channel, but nowadays this is no longer the case. In this fast-paced era, it would be naïve to believe that people interested in our research would open the site every day to check out if there is an upcoming event that fits their interest, location and schedule. Instead, there is a bigger possibility of success if we share an event on Facebook, for instance, where they can reach the publication through different angles: because the project shared the event, a friend might have liked it or they might be searching for an event in their city and Facebook algorithm would suggest our event as a possible fit.

How can my project benefit from this?

This is why there is a need of understanding web 2.0, a not-so-new concept of Internet where the audience is not only a passive consumer, but prosumers, given that we are now both consumers and producers of content. The followers of our projects have the chance to interact with experts in a very quick and easy way. When a person likes your project page, they will receive your news on their personal feed too. It’s the information going to them, not them looking for it. Now, imagine a person having breakfast, opening their Twitter and seeing that you organized an interesting workshop the other day in their city. For sure they will want to stay updated to join the next one.

With social networks, you can not only reach your target in a quicker and easier way, but you can also broaden it. I might not be aware of what sites my friend visits, or where he obtains information on his topics of interest; but if he ‘likes’ or shares related news, I will directly see the post on my phone, and as a consequence, there is a high chance I will find it interesting too.

The European Commission is increasingly encouraging the beneficiaries to spread their projects’ results not only to the scientific community, but also to a wider audience. How to achieve this? Take, for example, the FP7 project PlasCarb. You may not have wide knowledge about ‘graphitic carbon’ or how a ‘microwave plasma reactor’ works, which are the main topics in PlasCarb, but ‘obtaining valuable material from our own food waste’, which is the overall ambition of the project, may sound quite interesting. Even more so, if you would know that the project’s impact could lead to building stronger and more resistant mobile phone screens.

How to do it?

Opening a new profile or page is free on most popular social networks. This doesn’t mean that it’s easy to drive people to your new profile and get visibility immediately. In fact, people are distracted by a lot of social networks and posts; so you have to earn your audience by sharing valuable content. Not to mention, your project is not the only one wanting to attract followers, there are many projects doing the exact same thing and probably with more resources than you might have. The first step would be to monitor your competitors and learn from both their mistakes and best practices. Engage with them by liking and sharing their posts or events, and take into account all possible collaboration opportunities for spreading further your information.

Ask yourself: what would catch your attention about an EU project? Its results? Its events? Maybe to stay updated with its news?  Depending on the project and its progress, you should highlight its different aspects. During its first period, the promotion about its objectives and partnership should be prioritized, while in the second period there will be more concrete results to show to the world, such as scientific research outcomes, events that took place, or a material product or service.

Secondly, the target audiences should be well defined. Does the project aim at researchers or young startuppers or policy makers?  Based on this, a social media plan will follow to decide on what kind of content, tone and style should be used, together with the number and timing of publications.

All in all, social media networks are a new tool whose potential we should not underestimate or disregard. We should learn how to use their capacity in the most effective ways, since many EU commissioners, decision makers, scientists and researchers, but also official institutions, agencies and NGOs are growing their online presence and engaging with the influencers and most relevant actors in their field of interest. All these online communities will play a significant role as means and part of the communication and dissemination activities.

By: Cosmina Bisboaca

Our Survey with Horizon 2020 beneficiaries: your impressions on proposal preparation and project implementation

As we reached halfway through the EU’s eighth Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, at Europa Media we were increasingly eager to discover the opinions our colleagues in some of the key aspects of participation in Horizon 2020. To find out what peer project managers, researchers and funding consultants think of the current state of things in EU funding for research and innovation, we launched a survey consisting of six questions.

Here we show you the results of our own “public consultation”.

Firstly, we tried to understand the research participants’ impressions on a much-debated issue: quality and transparency in the evaluation of proposals.

As little as 9% of the respondents chose the most unfavourable answer: “The quality of evaluations is poor and the process is not transparent enough” – still probably too high a percentage for the Commission’s quality standards. The highest number of responses (40%) pointed to a need to improve the quality of evaluations, followed by the need to make the evaluation process more transparent. The most positive answer, “The quality of evaluations is good and the evaluation process is transparent”, received the second lowest percentage of responses, 20%.

Our second question referred to the novelties of Horizon 2020 compared to FP7: a bigger emphasis on impact and exploitation, as well as new elements such as gender dimension, innovation management and integration of new knowledge. We therefore asked participants whether they feel confident about addressing these issues in your proposals.

The majority of respondents (63%) do understand what needs to be addressed on these issues, however would require more detailed guidance and tools to better address them. On the other hand, very few respondents (9%) do not understand what needs to be addressed in the first place, and almost a third feels confident enough to understand what needs to be addressed and can appropriately address these issues in proposals.

We further wanted to better understand what Horizon 2020 beneficiaries think in terms of leveraging partners and coordinators’ reputation in the evaluation of a proposal. Very few respondents (2%) judge partnership completely irrelevant to the proposal chances of success (“An excellent proposal has a chance for funding even if its partnership is not strong”): the highest number of participants (40%) think that “An excellent proposal always has a chance for funding as long as it has an appropriate partnership”; this is followed by a 31% rather believing that “Having the right partners on board matters the most for getting a proposal funded”. The rest of the individuals taking the survey believe that “Even if a proposal is not excellent, it will have chances for funding if it has the right partners on board”.

Concerning more specifically the coordinator’s name, nobody believes that this does not influence at all the evaluation of Horizon 2020 proposals, whereas 45% of the research community considers it influential; 21% very influential and 27% as neutral.

Moving from proposal development and evaluation to the realm of project management, 71% of survey participants consider “Developing and submitting competitive project proposals” as the most challenging/demanding process throughout the full lifecycle of a Horizon 2020 project. It seems that once the project starts, technical implementation and financial management are not considered a key obstacle (respectively, only 8% and 9% indicated these as key challenges), thus suggesting that proposal development and evaluation are still the most problematic and least understood processes.

Finally, on reporting obligations in Horizon 2020 projects, exactly half of the respondents only mildly agree on the statement “Technical and financial reporting procedures in Horizon 2020 are clear and appropriate”, while only 5% strongly agree with it and as low as 1% fully disagree.

Based on these findings, it seems fair to conclude that Horizon 2020 beneficiaries and potential participants generally feel that access to EU funding through proposals is still too complex: they place a high importance to the careful selection of partners and coordinators, especially looking at their reputation in the EU research and innovation landscape, and would like to see higher quality and more transparency in the evaluation process. Once they have obtained funding for their research idea, it seems that the technical and financial implementation, as well as the reporting obligations, are not a major challenge, but reaching this point may be so demanding that individuals are easily discouraged from trying.

By: Valentina Zuri

LIFEinFORESTS Conference on Sustainable Forest Management and Forest Treatment of Natura 2000 Sites

WWF Hungary, Europa Media and their partners in the LIFEinFORESTS project organize a professional forestry conference on forest management of Natura 2000 sites.

The LIFEinFORESTSs conference will provide an extensive forum to learn and share experiences about sustainable forest management and forest treatment at Natura 2000 sites.

Hungarian and European experts will present the most up-to-date results and practices of sustainable forest management from Hungary and from the EU.

The conference will take place in Sopron (Hungary) on 21-22 March 2017.

Detailed conference agenda and registration is available at http://en.lifeinforests.eu/conference

wwf_2_g_lh_di_l_szl_-002

Some topics of the conference:

•    Good practices of Natura 2000 forest management – European overview
•    Natura 2000 in state and private forests in Germany
•    Integration of Natura 2000 objectives into close to nature forest management – the Slovenian model
•    Natura 2000 forest management in Hungary
•    Why Natura 2000 is important for private forest owners?
•    Issues of forest management in Natura 2000 sites
•   The possibilities of nature conservation development

Learn more about the LIFEinFORESTS project at: http://en.lifeinforests.eu

By: Balázs Kozák