Public Engagement and European Researchers' Night: A Conversation with Lyubov Kostova

Lyubov Kostova is a member of the Beautiful Science Foundation, the largest organisation for science communication and outreach in Bulgaria. She has been involved with SciComm since the very first event in Bulgaria, when the term "science communication" was actually introduced in 2003. At the Beautiful Science Foundation, Kostova and others have been beneficiaries and work package leaders for several European Researchers' Night (ERN) projects, and they are currently in the process of writing another one.

What is the importance of European Researchers' Night and similar events, which are very well-known and successful? What do you see as good examples or best practices of science communication?

I love Researchers' Night. I've been involved in Bulgaria since 2004, which I believe was one of the first years of ERN. Initially, Bulgaria was not part of the EU, so it was really an associated event, but I love it for many reasons. One of my favourite messages is "scientists are ordinary people with extraordinary professions". I think that is one of the best taglines I've ever seen.

I also love the sense of connectedness that extends across Europe and beyond. I think that is a major strength. Moreover, I appreciate the diverse subjects across the Researchers' Night projects portfolio. That diversity is also a huge strength. Overall, I am a massive fan of ERN; it is one of the most sensible campaigns funded by the EU because it is so absolutely connected.

And what about some aspects that could be improved?

I'll give you an example: in Italy, there are usually seven, eight, sometimes even nine projects, which is brilliant. The different projects in Italy work very cohesively together. In Bulgaria, there have been two projects, and whether or not they collaborate depends entirely on the teams. I don't want to be prescriptive or suggest that the Commission should limit one project per country. Still, perhaps there could be a mechanism to encourage and evaluate synergy when multiple projects exist in a single country.

In small countries, rivalries sometimes surface, and while I won't go into detail, some of the tactics used have been less than polite, which I find ridiculous and inappropriate. These rivalries should not be near projects as positive as this. I don't think rivalry should be eliminated, but there should be some feedback or requirements for collaboration among projects in the same country. Otherwise, we confuse the public. Sometimes my own communication output is quite visible, which can unintentionally overshadow other projects. There needs to be a way to address this beyond the teams themselves.

Another point is better use of the international network. Currently, we observe some cross-marketing and online connections between projects and countries, but there is potential for much more. One year, I tested this with several countries including Italy. I am known as the "international mother" of the FameLab competition because I helped make it an international brand. I contacted Researchers' Night teams and proposed making short videos about art and science from scientists' perspectives to be shared internationally during ERN. It was really cool and beneficial to all projects. I would love to see more projects encouraged to do this, or for the Commission to support a cross-team project or shared communication channel. Often, communication starts late, especially in the first year of a two-year project, leaving almost no time to connect.

I also really like the recent introduction of classroom visits in Researchers' Night. We have a program called "Ambassadors of Science at Schools", which we started years ago, before it was required. Now it is part of ERN's portfolio, and I'm thrilled. This shows that scientists don't only work one night a year. I think it is a significant development.

The leading actors in ERN are the researchers themselves, which is what makes it so famous and interesting—seeing an actual scientist. What do you think is the role of science communicators, not just in disseminating information but also in advising researchers, since that is not their job?

Honestly, in the events we organise, we always work with researchers who are good communicators. When they bring less experienced colleagues, we ask them to support those colleagues or let us know if training is needed. In Bulgaria, we have been conducting training sessions for quite some time, and many scientists have participated in them. This has helped more scientists communicate well, and they mentor or guide their colleagues.

I firmly believe science communicators should not be the only ones involved in Researchers' Night, but they should be close at hand, especially during lab visits. Communication facilitators typically visit locations outside research facilities. But when events take place in the lab, research staff must have someone available to assist with communication. Science communicators have an important role in this.

And what feedback or results have you seen from the training sessions? Do scientists want to do more or seek further learning?

Last year, we organised a two-day training for scientists new to science communication events. Out of 20 participants, seven immediately expressed interest in participating in our next festival. Several gained confidence speaking to the media, and many followed up to ask for advice, as they wanted to engage more in the future. This is very positive feedback, probably because formal science communication training is rare. It's not very often taught in schools or universities.

Perhaps something is changing: following the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a growing awareness that scientists need to develop basic communication skills. Science journalists and communicators must learn how science works, but scientists could also benefit from understanding communication. Can this mutual understanding help both sides?

Our very first training years ago was with a mixed group of scientists and journalists who were not specialised in science journalism but interested. It was a great success and marked the beginning of the movement for us in Bulgaria. That experience provided us with evidence of the need for communication training and bolstered our confidence that there is demand. It also led to many initiatives, including a TV show.

Regarding public engagement, what are the typical target audiences for the type of communication that occurs at events like European Researchers' Night?

It depends on the targets set by the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) program. In Bulgaria, we carefully segment our audiences using rigorous marketing methods and tailor different events accordingly. For example, although Bulgaria currently does not have a formal ERN project, we have a municipality grant for an event during the same time frame. One event is called "Young Ambassadors of Science at the Mall", where we showcase experiments by young researchers and STEM clubs from high schools to encourage students to stay in STEM fields. Another example is a genomics exhibition at the National Museum of Natural History for a different audience. We focus on matching content to the right audiences, which is crucial.

Interestingly, you use "marketing jargon", because sometimes in science communication we might forget the value of these skills...

Absolutely, you need a marketer. I have played this role for years — thinking about messaging, audience segmentation, and linking content creators with the right audiences to maximise impact. This diversity of skills in a team is essential. If you have a strong idea, you need to be able to "sell it" to whoever needs to hear it.