Machine learning shapes much of our world, yet many of us understand little about how it works. We remain in the dark about its mechanics. This reading list helps demystify the algorithms that are transforming our future.
In this Oikoplus Reading List, we take a look at machine learning. Of course, we also use various AI tools to support us in our day-to-day work. But to be honest, we have little understanding of how their algorithms work. And since we’re not alone in this, here are a few good reads on the subject.
Let’s start with a look at the history of software. The article “A Little History of Software Development” on the Ferrovial blog provides a concise history of the evolution of software development. It explores key phases from the early years when programming was informal and experimental, through the industrialization process in the 1980s with structured methods, to the Agile revolution in the 2000s that restored a focus on creativity and collaboration. The piece concludes by discussing modern trends, like AI and low-code platforms, that could transform the industry.
The blog of the MIT Business School has an introduction to machine learning that is well worth reading. The title says it all: The article “Machine Learning, Explained” provides a comprehensive overview of machine learning (ML), its role as a critical subset of artificial intelligence (AI), and its growing impact across industries. It explains how ML enables computers to learn from data without being explicitly programmed and highlights different types of ML (supervised, unsupervised, and reinforcement learning). The article also addresses key issues such as explainability, bias, and the importance of ethical AI.
Quanta Magazine has published an article that is really worth reading. It shows how abstract concepts can influence the way we think about computers, and that computer science is not just about programming languages and technical solutions. The article discusses Lenka Zdeborová, a computer scientist who applies concepts from statistical physics to better understand machine learning and algorithm behavior. She explores how the physics of phase transitions, like water freezing, can model algorithmic changes, particularly in neural networks. By bridging physics and computer science, Zdeborová aims to decode the fundamental properties of large machine learning systems, aspiring to develop a framework similar to thermodynamics for machine learning.
Of course, machine learning is not merely about curiosity-driven innovation, but also a multi-billion dollar business. Matthew Ball provides a good insight into the questions this raises for tech companies. His article “Parallel Bets, Microsoft, and AI Strategies” explores Microsoft’s strategic approach to AI investments, particularly its partnerships with OpenAI, while simultaneously developing its own models. Microsoft has placed parallel bets on different AI technologies, from large acquisitions like Nuance to smaller investments in startups. The piece outlines the competitive landscape between Microsoft and OpenAI and examines the company’s historical strategy of making diversified bets to secure its position in emerging technologies.
Now we’ve looked into machine learning and AI. But we have hardly really understood how the self-learning algorithms work. But wouldn’t that be important? Won’t we all become mere users if we have no idea how the technologies we use in our everyday lives work? This question was asked almost a decade ago. This Brookings article from 2016 discusses the importance of educating the public about machine learning (ML) to increase understanding and trust in AI technologies. It emphasizes that while machine learning algorithms are increasingly influencing various sectors, including autonomous vehicles and facial recognition, the public often lacks knowledge about how these systems make decisions. The article advocates for more transparency and better communication strategies to demystify ML and its impacts on everyday life.
At the end of our little exploration of machine learning, it’s clear that whether it’s corporate strategies like those of tech companies or the need for public AI education, understanding these algorithms is essential to navigating the digital world that is shaping our future. We will continue reading.
Biodiversity benefits us all – but it seems to also have to bring in money. How can capital be put at the service of species conservation?
The protection of biodiversity is one of the most pressing challenges of our time – this should be clear to almost everyone by now. In recent years, the European Union has developed comprehensive strategies to counteract the ongoing extinction of species. In addition to legal requirements such as the Nature Restoration Law, the EU is also relying on private investment to mobilise the urgently needed funds for biodiversity protection.
Current EU strategies: laws and private investments
With its Nature Restoration Law, the EU wants to set a milestone for the protection of biodiversity. It obliges the member states to restore at least 20 % of damaged ecosystems in Europe by 2030. But laws alone are not enough. In order to achieve its ambitious goals, the EU is also relying on private investment. One current example is the recently launched EU-funded Bio-Capital project, in which Oikoplus is one of 17 partners. Bio-Capital aims to develop instruments to channel private funding specifically into projects that promote the protection of biodiversity and at the same time bring economic benefits.
The protection of biodiversity requires immense financial resources. Public funds alone are not enough to finance the large-scale restoration of natural habitats. As the European Investment Bank assumes in accordance with WWF figures, up to one million species could become extinct in the coming decades if drastic measures are not taken (European Investment Bank). Private investment in species conservation projects is therefore essential. Innovative financial instruments such as sustainability linked loans or green bonds could help to incentivise companies to make their business more sustainable. This is also emphasised by the World Bank in a report that suggests learning from climate protection when it comes to species conservation.
Examples of innovative financial models
Private equity companies are increasingly recognising the importance of biodiversity for long-term financial stability. According to the Boston Consulting Group, there are clear economic benefits when companies invest in biodiversity-friendly practices. Adopting such practices can both minimise financial risks and open up new business opportunities (BCG Global). Morgan Stanley emphasises that investments in biodiversity protection must be tripled by 2030 in order to achieve the goals of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (Morgan Stanley).
Nevertheless, the question remains as to whether voluntary investments really make a significant contribution to effectively combating biodiversity loss. It has been emphasised for decades that the economy must make its contribution – but this simply does not seem to be possible without coercion. A key challenge is that short-term economic interests are often at odds with long-term environmental goals.
Models such as the UNDP-supported Biodiversity Finance Initiative (BIOFIN) could help here. This programme helps governments to develop and implement national biodiversity finance plans by redirecting public and private financial flows into nature-positive investments (UNDP). With its ‘Do No Significant Harm’ principle, the European Investment Bank also demonstrates that strict environmental standards are necessary to hold the economy accountable in the long term and orientate it towards sustainability (European Investment Bank).
Turning the economy from a driver of species extinction into a protector of biodiversity will ultimately require a combination of legal requirements and financial incentives. The protection of biodiversity is not only an ecological necessity, but also offers economic opportunities. Private investment plays a crucial role in this process. Not only can they ensure the survival of countless species, but they can also open up new areas of business that benefit both investors and nature. We at Oikoplus look forward to working constructively on this issue in the coming years.
Europe is at a turning point. The natural world, so important for our health and well-being, is facing huge challenges. Even before the pandemic, the war in Ukraine, and other conflicts, it was clear that our planet is fragile. In the 2021 Nobel Prize Summit, a resounding call echoed from 126 Nobel Prize laureates called for a big change in how we treat the Earth. Their message resonated with a growing global movement that wants to protect our planet for future generations. More and more people around the world are joining the scientists in their call to protect our planet
This reading list follows up on our previous one about the European Union’s engagement in space. This time, we’re focusing on how the EU is working to create a greener and stronger future here on Earth. We’ll also highlight how OIKOPLUS is playing a part in these efforts.
The European Green Deal: A Paradigm Shift in Our Relationship with Mother Earth
The European Green Deal has a big goal: By 2050, Europe should no longer contribute to climate change. This means living within our planet’s limits and taking care of its resources. We want to change how we interact with nature, protecting and restoring it instead of harming it. The Green Deal focuses on clean energy, recycling, and protecting the variety of life on Earth. It shows that a healthy economy and environment can go hand in hand.
Photo by Kelly: https://www.pexels.com/de-de/foto/strasse-landschaft-natur-sonnig-7446503/
Addressing Issues: Navigating Challenges and Criticism
Even though the European Green Deal is a big step forward, there are also some concerns. The recent advisory board review shows that many countries are taking their time to put the agreed-upon actions into practice. Some experts, as highlighted by Alexander Dunlap and Louis Laratte in Political Geographyworry that the Green Deal relies too much on technology and the market, and doesn’t go far enough in changing how our society works. Others think it doesn’t give people enough say and that some companies might just pretend to be green.
Two Pillars of the Green Deal: Biodiversity and Sustainable Food Systems
The EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 and the Farm to Fork Strategy are two important parts of the Green Deal. They aim to tackle the problems of disappearing wildlife and unsustainable food production. Both strategies put into action what Nobel laureates called for in 2021: a new way of living with our planet, based on balance and sustainability. The Biodiversity Strategy aims to stop the worrying loss of nature by setting ambitious goals to restore and protect our natural world. The Farm to Fork Strategy wants to change how we produce and consume food. Experts are excited about these strategies, calling them groundbreaking. They see them as a big step towards a future where we live with rather than from nature. Both, the Institute for European Environmental Policy and independent research groups see them as a major step towards a more nature-friendly future.
Photo by Rafa De: https://www.pexels.com/de-de/foto/landschaftsfotografie-des-grunen-grasfeldes-3013440/
Leading the Charge: OIKOPLUS and EU Projects
OIKOPLUS contributes to the EU’s Green Deal mission by disseminating and communicating projects like REACT and BIO-CAPITAL. REACT is leading the fight against invasive fruit flies, which threaten our crops. Through this project, we’re protecting our farms and natural environment. BIO-CAPITAL researches how finances may support biodiversity conservation, ensuring that nature’s capital is valued and protected.
Join us as we continue working towards a greener and stronger future for our planet.
Space industry is undergoing rapid change. At Oikoplus, we are accompanying this change. And in Reading List #041, we hint you to some good reads explaining what’s happening in space right now.
With two of the EU-funded projects in which we at Oikoplus are involved, Europe is laying important foundations for future space ecosystems: our Domino-E project is about utilising European Earth Observation (EO) satellites as efficiently as possible in order to provide satellite images of the Earth as quickly and cheaply as possible. And our EU-RISE project is about advancing in-space servicing, assembly and manufacturing (ISAM) technologies.
The ‘Space Age’ has strongly coined our collective and (pop) cultural idea of space travel. How this came about can be read in Far Out Magazine, for example. To this day, large (multi)national science and technology projects are proverbially compared to NASA’s moon landing programme.
The Apollo programme, which led to the moon between 1961 and 1972, is just one example of the space industry of days gone by. The space sector is evolving from large programmes and missions to modular systems. Future space ecosystems will be defined by many players of all sizes, commercial providers for different tasks from logistics and communication to the development of specific sensors, experimental setups and specialised technologies used in space. The European Space Agency’s (ESA) Technology Strategy sets out how this transformation should take place from a European perspective. Large system integrators such as Airbus play just one role among many – albeit an important one.
A new phase of Earth Observation
In recent years, a large number of new business models have emerged in the space sector. Projects that are essentially based on private investment are often referred to as “New Space”. Companies such as SpaceX, for example, which offer comparatively inexpensive transport options into orbit, are putting pressure on established players. Added to this are the national space programmes of up-and-coming space nations, which are also breathing fresh air into the industry. Europe is responding to this development, and maintaining Europe’s position in the space sector is a concern that the EU is supporting through projects such as Domino-E and EU-RISE.
ESA has listed six trends in the field of Earth Observation that characterise the upheaval that is currently underway. Over the past thirty years, Europe has been able to hold its own in the international EO competition. In 1972, the first non-military American Earth observation satellite, Landsat1, was sent into orbit. This was followed in 1986 by the French SPOT1, the first European commercial observation satellite. Since then, the European system integrator Airbus has established itself as the second biggest provider in this market behind Maxar (USA). The Domino-E project, in which Oikoplus participates as part of a multinational consortium, led by Airbus, contributes to the adaptation of European EO capacities to the New Space Age by increasing the competitiveness of EO systems operated in Europe, making them more efficient, more accessible and faster. More information on the project can be found at www.domino-e.eu.
Modular open-source robots: the workshop in space
Another field that is in a phase of fundamental economic and technological innovation is the field of robotic in-space servicing, assembly and manufacturing (ISAM), which involves carrying out mechanical work on satellites directly in-orbit. Numerous projects, technologies and individual modules have been developed in this field in recent years. This is because having robots carry out mechanical work in space is a key technology for space technologies in the future. After all, many satellites will be more cost-effiecient and more sustainable to operate if they can be repaired and upgraded – instead of being replaced by new ones.
The EU-RISE project, in which Oikoplus is involved, is making an important contribution here by analysing future business models for the operation of ISAM services and by linking already developed European components of ISAM systems and testing them in an end-to-end demonstrator. The open source strategy that EU-RISE is pursuing is intended to lead to the creation of standardised interfaces and systems that allow as many players of different sizes as possible to contribute to Europe’s ISAM technology.
Of course, Europe is not the only region in the world, and the European Union is not the only state actor seeking to secure its market share here. Large-scale ISAM strategies are also being pursued in the US. NASA’s ISAM State of Play provides a good overview of the technologies that could shape the future of space travel here.
At Oikoplus, we are pleased (and also a little proud) to be able to make a contribution to the European space activities by supporting the consortia of our space projects in their communication and dissemination. After all, space industry makes an enormous contribution to the opportunities we all have in our everyday lives, for research in a wide variety of fields and in understanding our universe. If you would like to get an overview of the areas in which Europe’s space sector is making a contribution, you can do so at EUSPA, the European Union Agency for the Space Programme.
When EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced the EU Green Deal in 2019, she spoke of “Europe’s man on the moon moment”. A beautiful metaphor. And like the EU Green Deal, Europe’s path to the future of the space industry is a major task in which many are working together. And so are we.
In 1998, Andrew Wakefield published a study entitled Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. In the article, Wakefield and his co-authors argue that there is a link between vaccination for mumps, measles and rubella, and autism in children. Years later, it became known that Wakefield had received GBP 480,000 for the results of the study and had concealed this. Today, the study has been withdrawn and Wakefield is no longer a doctor. However, the content of the “study”, which was not a study, still has an impact today.
Withdrawing a paper. Is that possible?
Articles are withdrawn for various reasons. The withholding and concealment of funding bodies or the concealment of conflicts of interest is one of them. The most common reason is honest mistakes in data collection, analysis, or interpretation. As with any other work, these can also happen in research. However, there is also deliberate data manipulation and plagiarism. AI could play a role in the future. People whol request the retracttion of articles are authors who notice inadequacies in their own work (as in the case of Shaawna Williams in The Scientist), colleagues who notice errors, and editors who become aware of inadequacies during public discussions.
With the new verifiability and the demand on publishers to fulfil their obligations, the career pressure on the credibility of scientists has also increased. The Scientist publishes an annual list of the most important retractions in the sciences (2021, 2022). The community has also become more aware and helpful – a “stronger systems hypothesis” advocated by Danielle Fanelli. Titles with particularly spectacular announcements have recently had to face scrutiny. Following the announcement by Ranga Dias et al. that they had found the first superconductor as a solid at room temperature, the article was first picked apart in the preprint within a few months and then withdrawn by the publisher in 2023 at the request of the co-authors. It was Dias’s third retraction, and the first to make waves in the media: Science reported it, the New York Times reported it, the Wall Street Journal reported it. This tarnishes the credibility of individuals, but strengthens science and its community.
It is normal to make mistakes. It is not surprising that fraud occurs. In addition to ethics and morality, there is also competition, careers and unfair means in science. What is not right, and highly problematic for society, is the long wait and lack of information for those who have cited a retracted paper and have not noticed the errors or fraud. Should retracted papers be deleted or made available to posterity in a labelled form?
As a result, there is still room for improvement in retraction processes. Ivan Heibi and Silvio Peroni, for example, in their article published in Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, analyse the retraction notice and find that there are serious differences in both content and metadata. Furthermore, according to the authors, retractions are difficult to find because of their negative connotations. It is therefore advisable to continue to work not only on the review of articles and their content, but also on the approach and publicity. This is a call not only to publishers and the research industry, but also to all those who support the research industry in publishing and disseminating knowledge that is considered reliable.
Immersive experiences are very popular as a tool for science communication. Do they keep their promises?
When I was ten or eleven years old, I visited an exhibition about street children in the Global South with my school. We had previously read the book “Das Tor zum Garten der Zambranos” by Gudrun Pausewang in German class, which is about the friendship between a street boy and the son of a rich family who swap roles. The exhibition perfectly complemented the book reading, as it picked up on many of the themes. The exhibition took visitors to Latin American, Asian and African contexts, complete with reconstructed street scenes and matching artifacts. And visitors experienced the exhibition in uncomfortable improvised slippers made from car tires, as street children often wear.
A quarter of a century later, I still remember this exhibition. But why? My guess: the combination of reading a book, a well-made exhibition and the very tactile car tire slippers was memorable enough to be remembered to this day. An immersive experience of white norther privilege, completely undigital and analog. Today, decades later, immersion is usually thought of as an interweaving of analog and digital experiences. There are numerous specialized providers who are also active in science communication. Immersive virtual reality offers huge potential for communicating science and research. The SciComm portal impact.science therefore sees virtual reality experiences as number 1 of the top 10 science communication trends of 2024. But what exactly are immersive experiences?
Immersion: what?
The Immersive Experience Institute, a kind of think tank from California, provides useful definitions here. Those who want to delve deeper into the question of what constitutes immersive experiences and what their potential and qualities are can find peer-reviewed answers in the Journal of Network and Computer Applications. And those interested in the practical implementation level can, for example, take a look at the Copenhagen-based company Khora, with whom Oikoplus recently collaborated on an EU project submission. The creative team at Khora develops virtual reality and augmented reality for a wide range of applications. The projects in which Khora is involved show how virtual reality is also being used and researched in EU-funded research and innovation projects. For example, in the Horizon Europe project XTREME (Mixed Reality Environment for Immersive Experience of Art and Culture), which was launched in January 2024. In this project, a consortium of 14 partners is researching and developing mixed reality (MR) solutions for experiencing art.
Of course, many applications of virtual reality, augmented reality and immersive technologies are resource-intensive and costly. As a result, their field of application is often of a commercial nature. One example of this is the exhibition “Van Gogh – The Immersive Experience”, which has been successful around the world. But even here, knowledge is conveyed and brought to life.
What are the communicative benefits of immersion?
But do immersive experiences with the support of modern VR and AR technology also lead to measurable communication success? Well, the answer is not quite that simple. Research into this is being conducted selectively: Elizabeth Behm-Morawitz at the University of Missouri, for example, has investigated the effectiveness of VR as a science communication tool. However, for a very specific use case. In an article on LinkedIn, the company Imagineerium, a British provider of technology-supported immersive experiences, writes: “There has not been a great deal of research done on human psychology when exercised in an immersive experience, but some scientists and psychologists are beginning to look into it more as VR grows from strength to strength and immersion is starting to be used in learning experiences.”
It is probably not easy to say whether digital, immersive experiences are a useful communication tool. As is so often the case, it all depends. In any case, they expand the toolbox of science communication. Virtual reality and augmented reality are certainly a useful tool for many a communicative message and many a target group. But not in any case, for everyone, everywhere.
The immersive exhibition I visited as a boy, which was completely analog and which I visited in the late 90s, is a good example of this. I remember the experience of the exhibition, but less about the actual exhibition content. But maybe that was just too long ago.
In this reading list, we want to look at the communication methods think tanks use to bring science into politics.
Professional providers of science communication–whether embedded in research institutions, as companies such as Oikoplus, or think tanks–aim to communicate research results clearly and transparently and make knowledge available for public debate. The target audience for this is diverse. One relevant target group that is usually among the declared addressees of science communication is political decision-makers. In this Reading List, we therefore want to focus on communication methods aimed at policymakers and take a look at think tanks.
Policy oriented think tank work, as stated by Annapoorna Ravichander results in ‘sets of guidelines to help achieve outcomes in a reasonable manner’. They are different from processes and actions. Policies are broad and set a certain direction. While science communication may not have a direct policymaking ambition, it can play a significant role in shaping policy debates, informing decision makers and influencing the development of ideas. And there are methods which can be applied in order to achieve policy influence.
The most central way for science communicators to achieve policy impact, is providing policymakers with expertise and consultation. Science communicators can place researchers as consultants to government agencies, providing input in the policy-making process. There is, however, a challenge in this method. According to Andrea Baertl Helguero, in order to have influence on policy through consulting, think tanks should maintain a strong intellectual transparency and ensure their research is diligent and reliable.
Another crucial method to achieve policy influence is networking. It’s a classic method used by think tanks. As Alejandro Chaufen explains in an article for Forbes, networking allows think tanks to create platforms where ideas can be exchanged and a consensus can be build around policy agendas.
A question of format
An established format for presenting research findings to policymakers are policy briefing papers. A policy brief is a concise, well-researched and informed summary of a particular issue, the policy options for addressing that issue and some recommendations. These briefs are an important tool for presenting research findings and recommendations based on them to a non-scientific audience to support decision-making. Policy briefs allow science communicators to communicate their research and findings in a way that conveys the urgency of the issue and is accessible to people with different levels of knowledge. However, here too, research institutions should ensure transparency and remain independent and transparent when presenting problems, options or proposed solutions.
When policy impact is the declared goal of science communication, this generates a need for anticipatory methods such as foresight and forecasting, which can help inform policy action and increase societal resilience in a sustainable way. Science communicators should take a long-term view of policy change, work over-time and build momentum for the topics and ideas they work with. Mark Halle, for International Institute for Sustainable Development, states that ‘think tanks cannot afford vagueness […]’. They must create outputs, which are clear, targeted, and incorporate a vision of long-term, positive effects.
This text hopefully serves as a good introduction to the question of what can be learned from think tanks when it comes to achieving political impact through science communication. And this leads almost inevitably to the question of how to measure the impact of research in the first place. Fortunately, we have already dealt with this in other Readings Lists, e.g here.
What can we learn from science communication? A reading list based on the experiences of the first five years of Oikoplus.
Relevant target groups may be small.
The success of communication is often measured in reach. Reach is also a hard currency in communication for research and innovation projects. However, science dissemination is often very specific, and it’s small target groups that are particularly relevant for successful project communication. In our Domino-E project, for example, one of the most relevant target groups is the small group of people involved in programming satellite missions for earth observation purposes. This target group is not only small, but it is also not easy to identify the communication channels through which it can be reached. However, the content for this target group is specific enough to be able to assume that the target group will find the relevant content as long as it is easy to find. So we decided to use YouTube as a channel.
Simplifying does not have to mean trivializing.
The closer you zoom in on a topic, the bigger it becomes. Many topics and issues appear straightforward at first glance, and only on closer inspection do their complexity, depth and multi-layered nature become apparent. Nevertheless, it is not wrong to take a superficial look at a topic first and only delve deeper in the second step. For experts who are extremely well-versed in a particular subject area, it is often difficult to allow this superficial view. They are too aware of the aspects that only become apparent on closer inspection. And that’s why the superficial view feels like a simplification to them, and often like a trivialization. It is important to allow simplification. But it should be correct. Our REACT project, which deals with the control of pest insect species, can be summarized easily: Insects are sterilized so that they can mate with wild-type insects in the wild without producing offspring. The insect population shrinks in the medium term due to the lack of offspring. In this way, agriculture is protected from the pest. Technically, this method involves a great deal of effort. Nevertheless, we have tried to explain the project in as simple and understandable terms as possible.
Science communication aims to make research accessible to the general public. This broad public can therefore be found as a target group in the applications and descriptions of many research and innovation projects. However, from a communication perspective, the general public hardly exists. Addressing the public as a whole is damn difficult, or rather: it is impossible. Developing key messages and storytelling approaches automatically involves a selection of target groups. Not everyone finds everything interesting. And if you manage to meet the interests of as many different target groups as possible, that’s already a great communication success. To gain an understanding of how diverse the target groups of our communication in research and innovation projects can be, we have our project partners develop personas in interactive workshops at the start of a project. These are fictitious people who we then use to jointly consider what needs to be done to reach them through our project communication: with which messages, on which channels, when, why, and with what goal in mind? It usually becomes clear quite quickly that the general public is only an auxiliary term that indicates that each project can address many different target groups.
Never underestimate how exciting any topic can be.
How interesting a topic is sometimes isn’t obvious at first glance. No wonder: not every topic can be perceived as equally exciting, and it always depends on how a topic is presented. You could say that it is the job of science communicators like Oikoplus to ensure that a topic arouses the interest of as many people as possible. That is true. But even those who do science communication, first have to find their very own interest in a topic. This does not always happen straight away, which is why it is part of our work to actively seek out approaches to any given topic in which we recognize the potential to tell a story to a specific target group. We therefore force ourselves to be curious and to think empathetically about what the thematic appeal could be for other target groups. Sooner or later, the penny will drop – and then communication will be much easier.
5. Even those who conduct the most exciting research don’t always like to talk about it.
As a journalist, you sometimes have to worm the information you want to convey out of the interviewees. You have to keep asking questions because the interest in conveying information tends to be one-sided. If you’re not doing journalism, but science communication on behalf of science, then this can also happen. This can be surprising, as one would think that the dissemination of information is in the interest of both the scientists and the public and that in the role of the communicator, one only has to do the mediation work. In practice, however, we have often found that researchers sometimes do not always like to talk about their work and that even basic explanations have to be laboriously elicited from them. There is no simple solution to this problem. It is important to build trust, present your communication work as transparently as possible, and create environments in which insights into scientific work are possible. In some cases, this can be a large video shoot in a laboratory with artificial lighting and large camera equipment, and in other cases, it can be a personal one-on-one conversation. In any case, science communication does not happen by itself, even when the most exciting research is communicated.
In science, quality is more important than quantity. In communication, this is sometimes not so clear. When the objectives for project communication are laid down in the applications for research projects, the corresponding KPIs are often set high. After all, a proposal submission should express high ambitions. If it is approved, you then realize that the goals may have been set too high and that publications, press releases, website articles, social media postings, photos, videos, and other project dissemination content can be produced, but that it is not easy to maintain your high-quality standards. High-quality content takes time. In our video series for the REACT project, for example, we try to explain the research project as comprehensively as possible and at the same time as clearly as possible. The first of the explanatory videos can be found here. Producing such videos requires a long and detailed exchange with the researchers involved. This is why dozens of such videos cannot be produced in a project like REACT. This should also be expressed in the objectives at the start of the project.
7. Speed is not everything in communication.
Rome wasn’t built in a day. And also, you have to take time in science communication. In other areas of communication, in journalism, PR, and advertising, speed is often a key quality feature. And there are also moments in science communication when it is important to react quickly. But in general, science communication follows the pace of science. For press relations, for example, this means that you can free yourself a little from the temporal logic of media operations. A research topic does not lose its relevance simply because it is no longer news. If, for example, a research paper was published several weeks ago, it is not pointless from the outset to draw journalists’ attention to the paper. This is a major difference between science communication and some other fields of professional communication work.
You don’t have to fully understand what you are communicating.
At Oikoplus, we often benefit from the fact that we approach the research projects that we support in terms of communication as laypeople. The fact that we are not experts in urban development, archaeology, crop protection, satellite technology, or the energy transition has helped us to ask the right questions in the projects that we implement in these areas. After all, the fact that we don’t immediately understand the methods and innovations of our projects is something we have in common with our target groups. This is not to be understood as a hymn to trivialization. Of course, it helps to familiarize yourself with the topics that are being communicated. But you also don’t have to be afraid to bring your expertise, namely communications expertise, to projects that you initially have no idea about. Don’t be afraid of rocket science. Even rocket scientists are sometimes dependent on communication experts.
Think globally, act globally.
To make an abstract topic accessible, it is often linked to a manageable aspect of people’s everyday lives. This is a common method in journalism. To draw attention to the consequences of global climate change, for example, changes to the ecosystem are described at a local level. This creates relatability. We wrote about this in Reading List #010. So far, so useful. In our communication for European and global research projects, we sometimes lack this local or everyday level. We design communication for international target groups – after all, research is international too. The slogan “think globally, act locally” therefore often becomes “think globally, act globally” for us. In concrete terms, this means that science communication cannot always respond to the needs of different local target groups. This is where translations into dozens of different languages and a lack of mobility alone can lead to failure. Science communication takes place on an international level. As a science communicator, you often have to trust that the topics you are communicating about will find their target groups – not the other way around.
10. Curiosity is the best driver of communication.
If you ask us at Oikoplus what drives us, the answer is easy. It is curiosity. In German, the word for it (Neugier) is derived from the greed (Gier) for something new (Neu). We took a critical look at this in one of our last reading lists. We understand curiosity as the constant interest in new experiences, insights, and perspectives. We see it as a great privilege of science communication that we can constantly learn something new in our work, and it even largely consists of this. We enjoy doing it.
Setting up a company can be risky, especially without prior experience. It requires the assistance of a tax consultant, a lawyer, and a notary. At Oikoplus, we initially established ourselves as a KG, which later became a GmbH – the appropriate legal form at the time. We have frequently reviewed and adjusted our company structure over the years. Additionally, administrative questions often arise during project handling, such as whether to subcontract or employ? Should we handle payroll accounting and bookkeeping ourselves or outsource it to external partners? Do we require a tool for travel expense accounting or is an Excel sheet sufficient? Since Oikoplus was founded, we have been preoccupied with these questions, but we have certainly learned a lot in the process. Our experience has been beneficial. When working with large organisations, universities, or corporations, we have our own contacts for administrative details. Our external colleagues may have to wait for their legal, accounting, or HR departments. In our small team, we make decisions ourselves, which we now recognise as one of our strengths.
Some of our coffee cups went missing in 2020. We now have insurance in case we lose data. Photo: OIKOPLUS.
Tools and Services
Over the years, we have acquired a fleet of tools big and small. We use Mailchimp, Adobe Suite, Nextcloud, QR.io, and CANVA, among others. Additionally, we occasionally create temporary accounts with providers such as GoogleMeets, Miro, and iStock. It is surprising how many subscriptions one can accumulate over time.
We also purchased some equipment. Initially, we used our personal computers and filmed with private cameras. Now, after five years, we have a whole armada of laptops and screens. Additionally, we have expanded our filming capabilities with camcorders, tripods, directional microphones, and clip-on mics. Finally, we have also acquired a lightbox and six boxes of Lego building bricks. We have got sthem to organise workshops that support researchers locate their own work in the vastness of a projects, make it tangible, and find narratives for their work. This brings us to the next point: the methods.
Set-up for the kick-off meeting for the ArcheoDanube project in July 2020. A short time later, we moved into our first office. Photo: OIKOPLUS.
Methods; or: a growing range of services
Initially, we focused on formats and content. We exchanged ideas with our customers both internally and externally, but lacked a strategic and methodical approach. However, this has changed. Due to the complexity of the topics we communicate, we have established clear processes to ensure we are well-informed.
Our projects begin with workshops to identify target groups, key messages, and channels with our partners. From there, we develop customised communication strategies. We conduct interviews with the scientists we support to improve our understanding and gather content for videos, social media, and blog posts. Policy briefs are no longer written alone, but developed in policy cafés together.
Since 2022, we have also been offering workshops for finding narratives and creating communication content together. At the end, the colleagues in the picture will have built a scale. Photo: OIKOPLUS.
Borrowing credibility
We have always been committed to providing our partners with the best service and meeting all agreed targets. However, we have not always been successful in achieving this. One of the reasons for this is quite simple. Our partners, who are mostly established research institutions or large companies, have a wide reach and high credibility. In our early projects, we focused on establishing our own online and offline communication channels for our projects.
A bottleneck that we quickly recognised. The answer: we need to borrow the credibility and reach of the research institutions and companies we work with. Not so easy. Because in our projects, we are perceived as the partner responsible for communicating and disseminating research achievements. It has now become one of our core tasks to explain to the teams of researchers and developers we work with how they can use their own channels or those of their institutions. Because setting up your own digital channels is simply not as easy in 2023 as it might have been a decade ago.
Five years Oikoplus
Our field has evolved, and we have evolved with it. We have a range of new ideas and plans. However, first, we must thank all our companions along the way. Our employees and our colleagues from SynCity and ArcheoDanube, from EnergyMeasures, Domino-E, REACT, and LifeTandems deserve special thanks. We would also like to thank the colleagues whose failed project submissions we supported. Some project applications narrowly failed. We have learned to deal with them. We would also like to thank the readers of our Reading List. While researching and writing these texts, we have repeatedly completed our thoughts and learned a lot in the process.
Whatever it is, something in us craves innovation. How else could the constant drive for the new, for the better, have become such the norm? Those who do not merely reproduce in their work, but make it better, are appreciated for it. For breaking new ground, for thinking outside the box, for not standing still, for pioneering, for being creative, for game-changing, for being disruptive. Our language has many beautiful phrases and idioms for innovative thinking.
At Oikoplus, we are constantly challenged to innovate the way we communicate science and research. And the researchers we advise and support are also constantly innovating. Sometimes it seems as if everyone is constantly challenged to reinvent the wheel.
As I read this, I think to myself: Talking about exnovation instead of just innovation doesn’t necessarily protect you from the weird business coach-speak of our time.
In it, Trentmann tells of European traders who set out for China in the 17th century with shiploads of innovations, only to be met with incomprehension there, since the value of things there was linked to their age and proven value.
Innovation as a creed
That old things have a high value, we know until today. From arts and antiques, for example. When it comes to intangible things like social norms, age is not necessarily a suitable indicator of quality or acceptance. If innovation is limited to the pure communication level, phenomena such as green-, pink- or wokewashing sometimes emerge.
And then there is even the rhetorical appeal to innovation, which merely serves to delay overdue ex-novation. It goes something like this: “We trust in technological innovations instead of bans!” You hear that occasionally, for example when it comes to climate change adaptation. Instead of replacing high-emission technologies with low-emission ones by law, i.e., top-down exovation, people wait for innovations to become established without doing much to ensure their success.
This is not to say that technological innovations cannot also make their contribution. But in many cases it is simply not enough to wait for innovation where exnovation has long been necessary. This could already be read in 2010 in the Harvard Business Review with reference to climate change. “Even if energy innovations have a lot of potential, they might not be deployable until it’s too late. History shows that most of the technology breakthroughs need decades to make it to the mass market.”
This and many other examples show that it makes perfect sense to include exnovation as a term in one’s own vocabulary. The term helps to critically scrutinize innovations. After all, there are also bad innovations. Incidentally, there is a nice word in German for the thesis in the first sentence of this text, according to which something in us craves for innovation: Neugier (engl: curiosity). The greed for something new. And no matter how critically one questions the concept of innovation. But don’t worry. At Oikoplus, we still believe that curiosity for innovation has its good sides.
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept All”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit "Cookie Settings" to provide a controlled consent.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
