Key takeaways from 19 research and infrastructure institutions: Part 3 – Community Engagement and Outreach

Over the past few months, we have taken a closer look at 19 research and infrastructure institutions from Germany, Europe and North America: their history, governance models, funding sources, strengths, potential blind spots and opportunities. These institutions vary widely: some have existed for decades, whilst others are still finding their footing; some enjoy secure, long-term funding, whilst others move from one project phase to the next. In this six-part series, we examine the findings from this analysis most relevant to the establishment of a German Research Software Institution.

In pitch decks for new research initiatives, one phrase crops up surprisingly often: “We develop our services together with the community.” In practice, however, this often means that whilst a stakeholder survey is carried out at the outset, the team subsequently continues to work largely independently.

Our analysis suggests that institutions that actively involve their communities in shaping their work are more likely to remain relevant and have a lasting impact.

The institutions examined can be categorised along a spectrum based on the degree of their community involvement. At one end are institutions who develop their services primarily in-house and target the community as their main audience. At the other end of the spectrum are institutions whose service architecture has been developed and continuously refined through iterative cycles with users. Feedback loops are an integral part of their operations, and they offer formats in which users have genuine power to shape the process. In the vast majority of cases, these are the more resilient and sustainable organisations.

A particularly illuminating example is the Annual Conference on EU Research & Innovation Funding, which has been organised for over three decades by the EU Liaison Office of the German Research Organisations (KoWi). With 300 to 400 participants each year, it clearly highlights the issues currently of concern to the community. This is where emerging needs become visible and services can be fine-tuned to meet real needs. This is co-creation in practice: services are not defined solely from within the institution, but evolve in response to how the community actually uses them.

A second example comes from the German National Research and Education Network (DFN). There, regular operational meetings are held with several hundred participants, during which member institutions provide direct, real-time feedback on the services. Such formats are resource-intensive. They tie up staff, cost money and require a great deal of preparation. However, they prevent the gradual loss of relevance that can occur when an institution relies too heavily on assumptions that are no longer aligned with community needs.

A third, more international example is the International Image Interoperability Framework (IIIF), which runs an ambassador programme involving several hundred volunteer advocates in over fifty countries. The ambassadors act as spokespersons and independent agents who deliver workshops in their respective regions, initiate translations and recruit new members. A comparable model – that is, a structured ambassador programme for a German research software institution – would be relatively inexpensive to establish and would have the potential to make a significant impact.

A fourth lesson comes from the fellowship programmes run by several of the institutions examined. Each year, they invite a limited number of people to become part of the institution for a specific period – usually between six and twelve months – to pursue their own projects whilst enriching the institution with their perspective. The programmes are generally oversubscribed, which demonstrates the high level of interest. Their benefits are twofold: the fellows become long-term multipliers, and the institution, in return, receives a continuous influx of new ideas, methods and relationships.

However, these formats do not work without investment. They require staff whose main task is to nurture the community. Furthermore, they require an organisational culture in which feedback is treated as a strategic resource rather than an administrative exercise. Several of the institutions examined are structurally limited in this regard. Their project funding does not allow for permanent positions in community management, their tools are fragmented across external platforms, and their culture is characterised by output indicators that systematically underestimate the work involved in community engagement.

It follows from all this that a German research software institution should not treat community engagement as a cross-cutting function undertaken alongside other responsibilities, but as a core area of activity with dedicated staff, its own budget and clear success indicators. This could include a community board that provides regular feedback, an ambassador programme that specifically builds up multipliers, a fellowship programme that brings new talent into the institution annually, as well as formats for real-time feedback such as conferences or smaller thematic meetings.

Communities that are merely kept informed of new developments become recipients. Communities that are able to play an active role, on the other hand, act as drivers. Establishing an institution that is intended to endure beyond funding phases requires an investment in community engagement on a scale comparable to investment in technology. It is not simply a support function, but a core operational component of sustainability.