Conference Program

In the French Higher education and research system, science communication professionals have always used changing terminology to describe their practices, promoting popularization or public understanding, and more recently, dialogue or participation. This variability in terminology is similarly found in most Western countries (Bergeron, 2016; Las Vergnas, 2016). The term ‘public engagement’, which has become ubiquitous in the rhetoric of science policy worldwide, is the most recent expression of this evolution. It now accompanies European policies that entrust the dissemination of knowledge to researchers or research institutions rather than the media (Hagendijk & Irwin, 2006; Weingart et al., 2021). Polysemic, it allows a wide range of actors to cooperate despite divergent interests while masking conflicts behind consensual objectives (Bensaude-Vincent 2014). Its adoption, an illustration of a phenomenon of mimetic isomorphism (Drori, Meyer, and Hwang 2006), provides no information on the concrete modalities of its implementation or on the effects it produces at different institutional levels.

Over the past 15 years, changes in the communication services of research institutions across Europe have shown largely convergent characteristics (Bauer & Entradas, 2023; Entradas et al., 2022). Existing work highlights the recent changes affecting all institutions, regardless of their size and age (Sörensen et al., 2026), and points to growing tensions between ‘corporate’ and ‘scientific’ communication.

National-level analysis provides a better understanding of how supranational dynamics are expressed in concrete terms: the circulation of organizational models, the effects of transnational injunctions linked to competitive funding, and the reappropriation of concepts from the academic field by public policies.

The French case remains largely overlooked in the international literature. This relative invisibility is partly due to the history of higher education studies in Europe (Kehm & Musselin, 2013) and its complexity. France is thus absent from most studies on university marketing (Hemsley-Brown & Oplatka, 2006) or communication officers (Casini & Neresini, 2012).

Our contribution is based on a mixed survey conducted in 2025 through interviews with 30 professionals and a questionnaire (57 responses) from the communication departments of universities and research centers. The analysis considers both official missions and concrete practices and highlights the lack of a political framework and clear indicators at the institutional level. It also emphasizes that the constant renewal of terminology in communication departments makes it difficult for researchers to assimilate it into their work. This instability weakens their relationship with communication professionals and limits their involvement in public engagement activities (Besley et al., 2021).

National public policies that encourage public participation have prompted institutional communication departments to reorganize internally to respond to calls for projects and obtain dedicated funding. These organizational changes may suggest a profound transformation. However, interviews with professionals show that these policies have not led to substantial changes in their practices or perceptions. Communication officers remain primarily focused on the local and immediate constraints that structure their daily activities. These observations highlight the tensions faced by services that receive little recognition and are subject to supranational standards and instruments that have to be constantly reinterpreted in local contexts.