Shaping roles through expectations and motivations: researcher–communicator interactions in science communication Open Access

Over the years, universities have built relationships with multiple stakeholders and embraced the task of creating knowledge that makes impact for society. Science communication has become an important part of the agendas of universities seeking to establish and maintain public trust in science (Henke, 2025). This development has enhanced the strategic importance and professionalization of the communication function (Pellegrini et al., 2025). Concurrently, researchers are increasingly expected to undertake science communication by popularizing science and disseminating research-based knowledge to the public (Negretti et al., 2022; Horst, 2013).

Communication research has focused on researchers by exploring their motives for communicating science outside of academia and their science communication practices (Negretti et al., 2022; Poliakoff and Webb, 2007) and identified various roles of researchers engaged in science communication as an increasingly important aspect of their work (Horst, 2013). Previous research has also concentrated on the factors that may hinder or support the professional development of the communicators (Pellegrini et al., 2025; Roedema et al., 2022; Lövgren and Sataøen, 2026). These aspects are relevant because communication functions typically compete with other organizational functions for budget and staff (Entradas et al., 2023).

While research has studied these two professional groups separately, discussions about science communication cannot be limited to the communication skills of individual researchers or the capacity of the communication department. To advance the university’s overall scientific enterprise, collaboration between researchers who own subject competence and communicators who possess communication expertise is a promising route (see Besley, 2020). This collaboration is strategically important for universities’ competitive advantage (Henke, 2025; Wilkinson et al., 2023). Science communication is an organizational matter (Rödder, 2020; Schäfer and Fähnrich, 2020), and there is a need to know more about how researchers and communicators interact to make science communication more impactful, including the roles, motivations and tensions at stake (Henke, 2025; Wilkinson et al., 2023).

Research has examined roles in science communication by focusing on either researchers (e.g. Horst, 2013) or communicators (e.g. Sataøen et al., 2024). Few studies that have considered both professional groups have compared their opinions about the challenges researchers face in digital science communication (Koivumäki et al., 2021), the importance of leadership for researchers’ engagement in digital science communication (Koivumäki and Wilkinson, 2022), the difficulty of creating a shared identity among researchers and communicators working with one project (Koivumäki and Wilkinson, 2020) and the limited public engagement with science (Oliveira and Carvalho, 2023). However, the relationships between these professional groups, including how they perceive and position themselves in relation to each other and how their roles are shaped through interactions, have remained largely underexplored. This knowledge gap calls for more research on the roles adopted by researchers and communicators in their science communication–related interactions.

Through combined consideration of researchers and communicators, this study contributes to filling the knowledge gap and aims to explore the roles that researchers and communicators adopt when they interact with each other in the context of science communication. By using role theory (Biddle, 1979), we identify the multiple roles, motivations and expectations of researchers and communicators interacting for science communication purposes. We study science communication as a relational practice rather than a division of fixed professional responsibilities. Understanding the roles adopted by these two professional groups while interacting in specific situations is valuable to universities addressing organizational challenges related to science communication. Universities can set up action plans to foster collaboration and make science communication more impactful.

This study relies on 15 interviews conducted with researchers and communicators working in a small university located in Sweden. Sweden is a relevant empirical context because it is one of the leading Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries in terms of research and development investment and has the third highest proportion of researchers in the population (Tegler et al., 2025). The academic landscape is characterized by a high number of researchers that face pressures for visibility and competitiveness (Lövgren and Sataøen, 2026). The need to integrate societal collaboration in both research and education is recognized by law, and the criticalities and possibilities to advance science communication are part of current national debates (Bohlin and Bergman, 2019; Bohlin et al., 2018; Swedish Research Council, 2022; Billgren Askwall and Fleetwood, 2026).

The selected university is an interesting research site because it is a teaching-oriented institution in which increased focus has been placed on research activities and outputs in the last decade. Consequently, science communication has become more important, leading to changed expectations for both researchers and communicators. The interviews are based on four real life constructs (RLCs) (Lapsley and Llewellyn, 1995) allowing researchers and communicators to delve into four science communication situations. This method allows researchers’ and communicators’ motivations and expectations of own and each other’s roles, when they interact for science communication purposes, to surface.

Next, role theory as a theoretical lens is introduced, as well as the literature on roles in science communication. Afterward, the method and how RLCs were used for data collection are explained. The study proceeds with an analysis of the findings followed by a discussion on the fluidity of the roles that emerged using RLCs. Concluding reflections and future research avenues close the paper.

Sociologists introduced the concept of role to understand patterns of human behavior. A role refers to expectations placed on an individual’s behavior, and role theory provides a framework for understanding how individuals perceive, interpret and perform the roles associated with their position in a social or organizational context (Biddle, 1979). Role theory has developed through a range of perspectives, each highlighting different dimensions of role-related behavior. In this study, we draw on broadly shared conceptualizations that emphasize the dynamic and situated nature of roles in social contexts. We argue that roles should not be viewed as fixed but rather as fluid: individuals may move between roles or adopt complementary roles depending on the situation. Moreover, interactions between individuals and roles are interdependent (Ashforth, 2001), and roles should be viewed as cultural artifacts that are constantly reconstructed within societies and organizations (Turner, 2001).

Roles are embedded in social structures and should be understood as social positions that carry both rights and responsibilities (Biddle, 1986). A role is shaped by both external expectations and internal understandings. Role theory, therefore, explores the dynamic process through which roles are defined, negotiated and enacted. This perspective highlights not only the significance of individual motivations but also the expectations tied to both formal and informal roles (van der Horst, 2016). We start from the premise that both role adoption and role behavior are shaped by role motivations as well as role expectations, understood as behaviors that are expected from specific positions within a social structure. In other words, an individual’s actions are influenced by both own motivations and what others in their professional, organizational and social environment expect from them, resulting in role strain when there are multiple and conflicting expectations associated with their roles (Goode, 1960).

Role theory is particularly useful for analyzing situations where individuals navigate multiple, overlapping or even conflicting roles (cf. Biddle, 1986). Previous studies show that both researchers and communicators adopt various roles in the context of science communication (e.g. Horst, 2013; Sataøen et al., 2024). Much of this research has examined roles separately, offering limited insight into how they are enacted, adjusted and negotiated through interactions between researchers and communicators.

Researchers’ motivation for science communication is related to a desire to improve and raise public awareness, understanding and interest in science (Horst, 2013; Wilkinson et al., 2023). Researchers view science communication as both a social duty (Loroño-Leturiondo and Davies, 2018) and a means to educate and share scientific knowledge (Negretti et al., 2022). However, while some engage in science communication for altruistic purposes (self-lessness) to promote trust, others do so for egoistic reasons (self-interested) such as securing funding, visibility and legitimacy (Henke, 2025). A more critical view believes that those who are active in science communication are less capable researchers (The Royal Society, 2006).

Colleagues can influence researchers’ motivation (Koivumäki and Wilkinson, 2022; Koivumäki et al., 2021). Researchers who perceive their peers as being involved in science communication are more likely to engage in it themselves (Poliakoff and Webb, 2007). Demographic factors such as gender and age appear to be relatively minor predictors of researchers’ participation in science communication. Instead, organizational culture and leadership are of importance (Koivumäki and Wilkinson, 2022), particularly in shaping the engagement of researchers early in their careers (Horst, 2013).

Horst (2013) identified three roles of researchers: the expert, the research manager and the guardian of science, each representing a particular identity for researchers and a corresponding understanding of what science is. When acting as an expert, the researcher represents a specific field of expertise, and science is understood as a set of expert communities offering factual knowledge about the world. The expert role aligns with the traditional academic identity of being a disciplinary scholar that deconstructs complex problems, applies scientific concepts and communicates validated knowledge (Hofmann et al., 2025). By doing so, researchers aim to engage in a more didactic role, addressing misinformation in public discourse, lending expertise to specific stakeholders and simplifying complex science for lay audiences (Wilkinson et al., 2023; Horst, 2013; Weingart, 1999).

As a research manager, the researcher represents a professional research organization, and science is seen as a socially organized activity within universities that requires resources to produce knowledge. This role is taken as a reaction to “academic capitalism” (Slaughter and Rhodes, 2004) that resulted in scholars becoming more professional in their communication activities and contributing to research institutions’ reputation building (Davies, 2021). In this role, researchers use communication activities to build collaborations, attract students and partners, and align communication with funding opportunities (Fähnrich, 2017; Schäfer and Fähnrich, 2020; Marcinkowski et al., 2013).

In contrast, when adopting the role of guardian of science, the researcher represents a social institution. Science is understood as the foundation for rational problem-solving in society and a source of enlightenment. While the expert role assumes a connection to problems and actions to solve them (Peters, 2008), the guardian role suggests more personal connection and idealism to enhance public enlightenment, fostering broader engagement for democratic decision-making and advocating for scientific methods to address societal problems (Bucchi, 2008; van Eck, 2023).

As engagement with broader communities has gained prominence, universities institutionalized science communication (Bucchi and Trench, 2021; Henke, 2025; Marcinkowski and Kohring, 2014) and professionalized their communication functions (Pellegrini et al., 2025; Entradas et al., 2024; Koivumäki and Wilkinson, 2020; Lövgren and Sataøen, 2026). Research on science journalists illustrates how communicators perceive their work. They often see themselves as informing the public, translating complex material or contributing to education (Bauer et al., 2013). Similar patterns appear across a broader range of science communicators (see also Koivumaki et al., 2021; Sataøen et al., 2024). Communicators are motivated by enthusiasm for the subject, a desire to educate and a wish to counter misinformation (Wilkinson et al., 2023).

However, communicators’ engagement in science communication is constrained by several barriers, including lack of time, insufficient resources and limited reward or recognition (Pellegrini et al., 2025). Communicators also find it difficult to involve others, such as researchers, in communication activities (Wilkinson et al., 2023; Biermann et al., 2025). The collaboration with researchers is not easy when duties and responsibilities related to science communication are ambiguous and coordination issues exist (Koivumäki et al., 2021). This challenge may be reinforced when communicators themselves position communication as a supportive rather than a strategic activity (Lövgren and Sataøen, 2026).

Communicators adopt multiple roles (Fischer and Schmid-Petri, 2023). The role of knowledge disseminator often involves media-oriented activities such as producing press releases or managing institutional websites to enhance the visibility of research and support strategic goals set by university management (Entradas, 2022; Entradas et al., 2024). In adopting this role, communicators are dependent on the researchers to provide content and scientific authority (Biermann et al., 2025). The knowledge disseminator role extends to acting as agenda-setters or storytellers, where communicators proactively identify news value in research and shape how it is presented to wider audiences (Sataøen et al., 2024).

Communicators also adopt the role of information processors that gather, process and disseminate the information to both external and internal stakeholders (Springston and Leichty, 2016). Communicators take on multiple tasks to navigate complex and conflicting expectations by becoming service providers and gatekeepers (Fischer and Schmid-Petri, 2023). To act as information processors, they need to network and build connections both with external and internal partners, as well as be able to shift between different tasks (Schwetje et al., 2020).

Some communication activities are decentralized (Entradas et al., 2024; Pellegrini et al., 2025). While central communications departments handle more public relations (PR) and marketing functions, communicators increasingly support researchers directly, often acting as facilitators (Entradas et al., 2023; Trench and Miller, 2012), a sparring partner that enables reflection (Koivumaki et al., 2021) and provides the necessary infrastructure or marketplace for interaction (Fischer and Schmid-Petri, 2023).

In sum, research identifies the diverse roles adopted by researchers and communicators, highlighting their motivations and challenges (e.g. Horst, 2013; Fischer and Schmid-Petri, 2023; Negretti et al., 2022; Pellegrini et al., 2025). Few studies explicitly investigate how both researchers and communicators relate to science communication (e.g. Oliveira and Carvalho, 2023). It can be difficult for researchers and communicators to develop a shared sense of identity and purpose when they are involved in the same project. This difficulty can negatively affect the quality of science communication (Koivumäki and Wilkinson, 2020). Collaboration between researchers and communicators is hindered by incompatible views on responsibilities and organizational settings, as well as roles variegation (Koivumäki et al., 2021). Different types of formal and informal incentives as well as leadership impact researchers’ engagement in science communication (Koivumäki and Wilkinson, 2022).

Taken together, both researchers and communicators adopt multiple and sometimes conflicting roles in science communication. Researchers may act as experts, managers or guardians of science, while communicators move between roles such as knowledge disseminators, information processors or facilitators. These roles are not mutually exclusive; considering our view of roles as being fluid, researchers and communicators may shift between them depending on context, audience and organizational pressures. This fluidity suggests that researchers’ and communicators’ roles when collaborating for the sake of impactful science communication are socially constructed, contingent on organizational and cultural context, and negotiated in interaction with each other. Researchers and communicators are mutually interdependent. Researchers rely on communicators for expertise, platforms and institutional visibility, while communicators depend on researchers for credibility and content (Koivumäki et al., 2021; Roedema et al., 2022). Both professional groups benefit from considering each other’s perspectives (Roedema et al., 2022).

Drawing from role theory, this study enriches previous research by empirically illustrating the relational and situational character of roles in science communication. It identifies the roles that researchers and communicators adopt when they interact with each other while handling their responsibilities in the context of science communication.

This study employs a qualitative, interview-based research design to explore the roles that researchers and communicators adopt when they interact with each other in the context of science communication. To ensure the study reflected both perspectives, the research team closely collaborated with the communication department of the selected university. Through joint meetings and workshops with the communicators, the research team refined the study’s aim, identified key themes for exploration and established criteria for participant selection. This collaborative process also informed the development of relevant and potentially sensitive aspects of researcher–communicator interaction to be treated during the interviews.

To facilitate meaningful discussions during interviews, four RLCs were created. RLCs are stories which depict the potential tensions among people in real situations. They must be realistic and not caricatures while pointing at potential criticalities (cf. Lapsley and Llewellyn, 1995; Argento and van Helden, 2023; Hellstrom and Lapsley, 2016). The RLCs were designed to stimulate interviewees’ reflections on how researchers and communicators interact in their science communication efforts. An advantage of RLCs is that they can be used as a methodological tool to discuss sensitive topics, such as experience and comfort with science communication, frustrations and pressures, need to prioritize and thereby marginalize some content, which would be more difficult to elicit through direct questions in traditional interviews.

The RLCs were co-developed by the research team and the communication department to ensure a balanced representation of viewpoints of the two professional groups. The collaboration was beneficial because representatives of the communication department helped identify relevant themes and situations involving both researchers and communicators in the context of science communication. The co-developed RLCs were credible and meaningful for both professional groups. Yet the communication department was not involved in the design of the empirical study and therefore did not influence the interview process and the analysis conducted by the research team.

An initial set of five RLCs was drafted and then piloted with researchers from one faculty. Based on feedback, redundancies were removed leading to four RLCs covering themes central to science communication, namely newsworthiness, message, prioritization and visibility. For illustrative purposes, the first RLC is presented in the box below.

This RLC deals with newsworthiness and depicts the differing views of the researcher and the communicator. The conversation between the two people highlights tensions and dilemmas surrounding what information is worth publishing, what target audience is meant to be reached and what means are most appropriate. The second RLC presents a conversation between a researcher and a communicator focusing on the message to be delivered to the audience. Tensions arise because the researcher wishes to preserve scientific content to ensure quality and credibility of research results, while the communicator prefers to provide a message that is concise and impactful for the sake of dissemination. The dilemma concerns the “simplification versus clarification” divide which sees researcher reluctant toward overly simplifying the message and communicators eager to clarify the content.

The third RLC deals with the tensions stemming from the prioritizations that communicators and researchers make in their daily work. While the communicator, who struggles with time pressures, prioritizes communication work that leads to visibility for the whole university, the researcher is frustrated by the communicator’s choice to marginalize the communication about the international scientific event they had organized. The fourth RLC illustrates a conversation between a researcher and a communicator who have diverging opinions on visibility. Tensions are upfront because the researcher wishes the communicator to be more proactive and give visibility to their research, while the communicator believes they offer adequate opportunities.

During the interviews, the RLCs were presented to the interviewees who were then asked to respond to broad, open-ended questions. The interviewees were encouraged to react to each RLC by sharing the thoughts and feelings it evoked, if it is realistic and they could identify with it, if they could claim that one part was more right than the other, if they could justify the behaviors of the researcher/communicator and thereby explicate their own view on the theme covered in the RLC. Interviewees were also given the opportunity to reflect more broadly on their own experiences. Toward the end of the interview, they were asked why we engage in science communication at all and to provide specific examples of their own successful experiences. Interviewees presented their own perspectives on the interaction with the counterpart (researchers or communicators depending on the interviewee), while reflecting on tensions and dilemmas relevant to science communication.

A purposeful sampling strategy (Patton, 2015) was employed to select researchers ensuring representation across the faculties of the selected university and to capture a diverse range of experiences. The final selection of researchers ensured diversity in gender, academic rank (professor, associate professor, PhD, lecturer) and disciplinary background. The communication department was not informed of the final list to maintain confidentiality. Concerning the selection of communicators to be interviewed, the research team selected seven communicators with most involvement in science communication. The selected communicators had between one and over 20 years of experience working with communication tasks at the selected university. Their educational background was mostly in media and communication studies, and their competence areas covered communication related to research, teaching and recruitment.

According to the Swedish Ethical Review Act (Lag 2003:460), this study did not require ethical review because it did not involve sensitive personal data. However, ethical concerns were considered by means of ensuring procedural reliability and a thorough data management plan. The interviewees who agreed to participate in the study were informed about the study’s aim, data management and publication intentions. Once informed, the interviewees were asked to sign a letter of informed consent to record the interview. All the interviewees agreed and signed. None of the research team held direct supervisory roles over interviewees, which minimized power dynamics during the interviews.

In total, 15 interviews were conducted: 8 with researchers and 7 with communicators. The interviews were conducted between June and September 2024. They took place face-to-face in neutral meeting rooms, except for two which were conducted via Zoom due to logistical constraints. Interviews lasted between 47 and 64 min, averaging 55 min. Interviews were recorded and transcribed by using the university-approved software to ensure data security and confidentiality. Interviewees were pseudonymized using letters A through O.

Data analysis followed a reflective approach in which themes were developed through iterative engagement with the interview transcripts (Braun and Clarke, 2006). All authors first familiarized themselves with the data through readings of transcripts. Afterward, the interview transcripts were manually coded by the research team. To ensure a shared analytical orientation, the initial coding round involved all authors who independently coded the same interview transcript. A joint discussion followed to explore interpretative differences and settle the coding framework. This first coding round resulted in 30 codes that were used to code a second interview transcript. The second coding round and related joint discussion led to a final refinement of the coding framework still consisting of 30 codes. Following this calibration, the full data set of 15 interview transcripts was systematically coded. The transcripts were equally allocated among the members of the research team.

The coded material was then compiled into a shared document for collaborative thematic analysis. During coding and theme development, particular attention was paid to how the interviewees described their interactions with the other professional group. The focus on relational aspects of science communication led to recognizing the 24 codes that were relevant to reveal patterns in line with the research aim. This manual and collaborative process ensured deep engagement with the data and allowed for a nuanced understanding of the resulting themes. Themes were developed based on their recurrence, relevance and capacity to illuminate key patterns in the relationship between the two professional groups. These themes were further interpreted through the lens of role theory. This theoretically informed interpretation resulted in seven roles spanning across the four RLCs.

The findings illustrate how researchers and communicators adopt multiple, dynamic roles in the context of science communication, reflecting both individual motivations and organizational, professional and social expectations. The analysis resulted in the identification of seven distinct roles that underscore the fluid, interdependent and negotiated nature of roles (Biddle, 1979; Ashforth, 2001; Turner, 2001). As situational demands change, researchers and communicators navigate multiple and sometimes overlapping roles. Two of the roles are related to communicators, one to researchers, and four are shared across both professional groups. Table 1 presents an overview of the roles, including role description, codes and illustrative quotes that exemplify the respective roles.

The communicator adopts the role of the Gatekeeper based on organizational expectations to safeguard the university’s reputation and manage resources effectively. This includes making decisions about what research is communicated, to whom and through which channels (Fischer and Schmid-Petri, 2023). These expectations are paired with personal motivations to do a good job and contribute to the university’s strategic goals (Entradas, 2022; Entradas et al., 2024). However, and in line with previous studies, we found that expectations and motivations can also be tied to institutional positions (see Biddle, 1979; Ashforth, 2001) as well as co-constructed in interaction with others (see Turner, 2001). For example, while communicators adopt the Gatekeeper role, researchers also recognize them as such, particularly when they perceive their work as being deprioritized (see Table 1, illustrative quote 2). These perceptions contribute to the interactional shaping of the Gatekeeper role between communicators and researchers.

The findings indicate that communicators also adopt a complementary role as the Supporter. This role is shaped by expectations to provide practical and professional support in the communication process, such as hands-on writing as well as advising and guiding researchers, for example on how to speak on the radio (see Table 1, illustrative quote 3). The Supporter role centers on building and maintaining professional relationships, and offering hands-on assistance, often in situations where researchers feel uncertain or unfamiliar with communication practices. This role aligns with the literature describing communicators as facilitators (Entradas et al., 2023; Trench and Miller, 2012; Biermann et al., 2025; Fischer and Schmid-Petri, 2023), enabling researchers to engage with broader audiences. While expectations emphasize being helpful and service-oriented, communicators’ motivations are also linked to professional pride and a desire to avoid internal critique. The Supporter role is enacted with humbleness, aiming to contribute without overstepping. From a role theory perspective, this illustrates how supportive behaviors emerge from balancing formal role expectations with personal role motivations (van der Horst, 2016).

The findings reveal that the researcher adopts the role of the Personal brand builder. This role is shaped by the expectation that researchers should take individual responsibility for communicating their work in order to increase visibility and reach relevant audiences (see Table 1, illustrative quote 5). Motivated by individual role motivations (Biddle, 1986), such as career advancement and personal goals, researchers adopting this role view communication as a means of enhancing visibility and distinguishing themselves within an increasingly competitive academic landscape. This result is in line with the findings of Lövgren and Sataøen (2026) and of Henke (2025) who pointed at egoistic reasons, such as securing visibility, for engaging in science communication. Similar dynamics are described by Horst (2013) in relation to a research manager role, as well as in the literature highlighting the professionalization of academic self-presentation (Davies, 2021; Fähnrich, 2017; Koivumäki and Wilkinson, 2022). Our findings point to a comparable pattern, in which communication is framed less as a collective responsibility to science and more as an individual strategy for differentiation when researchers adopt the Personal brand builder role.

Both researchers and communicators adopt the role of the Networker. Networking and liaison roles have previously been described in relation to building collaborations (Marcinkowski et al., 2013) and institutional reputation (Schwetje et al., 2020; Schäfer and Fähnrich, 2020). This role centers on building and maintaining relationships to enable effective communication. It relates to communicators’ need to interact with researchers for communication content (Biermann et al., 2025). The Networker role involves actively mapping contacts and sustaining dialog over time. As Networkers, both researchers and communicators build bridges not only to external but also to internal stakeholders. The role is shaped by expectations to be accommodating and inclusive and is motivated by a desire to produce high-quality communication and to facilitate collaboration. For both professional groups, the Networker role reflects a relational approach to communication, in which knowing “who to talk to” is seen as key to getting things done (see Table 1, illustrative quote 8).

Another role adopted by both researchers and communicators is the Partner. This role is grounded in mutual understanding and trust, interdependence, and shared responsibility for successful research communication (see Table 1, illustrative quote 9). The findings show that the Partner role is shaped by mutual expectations between researchers and communicators, as well as by organizational expectations emphasizing collaboration and partnership. This supports earlier work suggesting that dialog and engagement in science communication are increasingly framed as collective rather than profession-specific responsibilities (Bucchi and Trench, 2021; Oliveira and Carvalho, 2023). Together, these expectations enable cooperation as a path to better results and workplace wellbeing. Motivated by curiosity and a belief in “being stronger together,” the Partner role emphasizes the importance of dialog and collaboration (see Table 1, illustrative quote 10).

The Coach role is also adopted by both researchers and communicators and centers on supporting learning. Both groups engage in reciprocal role taking, learning from each other through role enactment, in line with the findings of Ashforth (2001). This role is shaped by expectations to guide, educate and share knowledge and is motivated by a desire to improve communication practice and a desire to educate (Wilkinson et al., 2023; Negretti et al., 2022; Bauer et al., 2013). As coaches, communicators ask questions and seek to foster understanding, whether by helping researchers grasp principles of science communication or by learning from researchers’ subject expertise. This role highlights how communication can function as a space for mutual learning and development. While communicators have previously been described as adopting an educator role (Springston and Leichty, 2016), our findings emphasize a two-way coaching dynamic in which mutual learning is central, echoing the call to see science communication as a reflective practice (Roedema et al., 2022).

Finally, both researchers and communicators adopt the role of the Co-opetitor, which involves balancing collaboration and competition between the two professional groups. Science communication entails competing expectations shaped by organizational demands to collaborate across professional boundaries (Koivumäki et al., 2021) and as Co-opetitors, researchers and communicators must reconcile these tensions. Motivated by a desire to do a good job and preserve working relationships, individuals in this role engage in reasoning and negotiation to balance competing goals. Tensions between simplification and accuracy (Weingart, 1999; Bucchi, 2008) are thus not merely structural challenges but are experienced and enacted as part of this role, where compromise and negotiation become integral to professional identity. Expectations to collaborate while ensuring communication quality, alongside the need to defend one’s professional expertise, are articulated by both groups when describing how such tensions are negotiated (see Table 1, illustrative quote 13). The Co-opetitor accepts compromise as part of the process of negotiating tensions and emphasizes finding practical solutions within a complex communication landscape. In this way, the Co-opetitor role differs from the Partner role whose inherent focus lies on mutual understanding and interdependence.

This study has identified a multiplicity of roles that researchers and communicators adopt in their interactions and explored how these roles coexist within the context of science communication. Four RLCs were used as a methodological tool to prompt reflections on concrete and often sensitive science communication situations characterized by tensions and dilemmas. Participants’ perceptions and elaborations on these situations made their role definition, negotiation and enactment visible in ways that are otherwise difficult to access. Although the RLCs structured the interviews, it was not possible to identify specific roles pertaining to a single RLC. Instead, roles were fluid and identified across the four RLCs.

The four RLCs in this study function as focal dilemmas that reveal role negotiation in relation to science communication. These dilemmas show that roles often involve trade-offs rather than ideal solutions. For instance, in the first RLC, the conversation between Alex and Kim illustrates a tension between the researcher’s aspiration for recognition and the communicator’s professional judgment about newsworthiness. Researcher Alex, motivated by personal achievement and visibility, expects broad dissemination, while communicator Kim, guided by institutional priorities and audience considerations, prioritizes strategic communication. This negotiation highlights balancing conflicting expectations and gives rise to emergent roles – the Co-opetitor, where collaboration and negotiation coexist with underlying friction between the researcher and the communicator; the Personal brand builder embodied by the researcher; and the Gatekeeper, represented by the communicator.

The findings reveal that many of these roles are defined in relation to one another, reflecting the relational nature of role expectations (Biddle, 1986; Turner, 2001). The Gatekeeper role, for instance, presupposes others who seek visibility, while the Coach role depends on mutual teaching-learning between researchers and communicators. These role-sets emphasize that science communication is an interdependent process in which both parties continuously interpret and adjust to each other’s expectations. By using RLCs that situate the dilemmas and tensions of the interactions between researchers and communicators, and by inviting both professional groups to reflect on the same situations, the analytical focus was directed toward both groups’ roles. This approach enabled participants to reflect on the roles of both researchers and communicators, even though these reflections were inevitably shaped by their own professional positions and resulted in different reactions.

The RLCs tackle the tensions and dilemmas that arise from both structural arrangements and interpersonal interactions. On the one hand, communicators’ formal responsibility for managing communication practices places them in tension with researchers seeking autonomy in communication. This tension becomes visible in the RLC focusing on message as well as the RLC focusing on prioritization. On the other hand, tensions also emerge in everyday collaborations, as in the Coach role, where mutual teaching and learning are required, a dynamic that surfaces across several RLCs. Recognizing these dual sources of tension highlights that role dilemmas are not merely structural but continuously reproduced and transformed in practice.

The Supporter and Gatekeeper roles express the influence of organizational structures and incentives in science communication. Previous research argues that institutional strategies shape which activities are prioritized and how the resources are used (Entradas et al., 2024; Pellegrini et al., 2025; Schäfer and Fähnrich, 2020). Our findings illustrate how organizational features give rise to overlapping and sometimes conflicting roles. For example, researchers experience tension between their role as rigorous scholars, committed to accuracy and nuance, and their role as accessible communicators, expected to simplify and attract attention. This tension becomes tangible in the RLCs highlighting visibility and message. Similarly, communicators feel strain between their formal responsibility as institutional Gatekeepers – protecting the university’s reputation – and their informal motivation to act as supportive partners for researchers, a tension that surfaces in the RLCs focusing on prioritization and newsworthiness. These experiences of role strain (Goode, 1960) highlight that dilemmas in science communication are lived experiences, where individuals continuously negotiate which expectations to prioritize in practice.

The use of RLCs supported a relational understanding of roles by making mutual expectations and interdependencies, thus relational dynamics visible. By inviting both researchers and communicators to reflect on specific situations laden by tensions, the RLCs supported an analysis that foregrounds interaction and interdependence, while allowing different and sometimes conflicting perspectives to be uncovered. Therefore, the analysis extends previous research that has tended to examine researchers and communicators as separate professional groups (e.g. Horst, 2013; Negretti et al., 2022; Pellegrini et al., 2025; Sataøen et al., 2024), by showing how their roles are co-constructed in practice signaling fluidity and multiplicity.

The purpose of this study was to explore the roles that researchers and communicators adopt when interacting with each other in the context of science communication. Drawing on role theory (e.g. Biddle, 1979) as a theoretical lens, we moved beyond viewing researchers and communicators in isolation and instead adopted a more holistic perspective. This approach allowed us to explore how roles are shaped through interaction, and how personal and organizational expectations and motivations influence role adoption.

By enabling both researchers and communicators to reflect on their interactions with the counterpart in specific situations, covering the themes of newsworthiness, message, prioritization and visibility, our findings corroborate previous research claiming that roles are not fixed but rather dynamic and context-dependent (Biddle, 1979; Ashworth, 2001; Turner, 2001). Expectations arising from one’s own profession, organization and social environment, as well as expectations placed on the other party, shape how individuals act (van der Horst, 2016; Pellegrini et al., 2025; Koivumäki et al., 2021). Motivations stem both from internal drivers, such as career goals, and from external demands, such as organizational strategies or reputational concerns (Goode, 1960; Horst, 2013; Pellegrini et al., 2025; Entradas et al., 2023). Thus, science communication emerges not as a set of isolated tasks but as a complex, interdependent practice between two professional groups.

We identified seven roles reflecting how the two groups perceive their responsibilities and relationship with each other, as well as underlying motivations and expectations that guide their engagement in science communication. Two roles are associated with communicators (the Gatekeeper and the Supporter), one role is specific to researchers (the Personal brand builder), and four roles are shared across both groups (the Networker, the Partner, the Coach, and the Co-opetitor). Some of the identified roles are similar to those recognized in previous studies. For example, communicators have previously been described as facilitators (Entradas et al., 2023; Trench and Miller, 2012; Biermann et al., 2025; Fischer and Schmid-Petri, 2023), a role closely related to our Supporter role. Also, the importance of networking, central to the Networker role identified in this study, has been highlighted before (Schwetje et al., 2020; Schäfer and Fähnrich, 2020).

These seven roles are not mutually exclusive, expressing the complex and evolving roles of researchers and communicators in science communication. These roles reflect how researchers navigate expectations related to visibility, public presence and individual responsibility for communication (see also Fähnrich, 2017; Davies, 2021; Koivumäki and Wilkinson, 2022), while communicators balance facilitation, coordination and strategic responsibilities (see also Fischer and Schmid-Petri, 2023; Sataøen et al., 2024). While earlier research stressed the challenges of involving researchers in science communication (Wilkinson et al., 2023) and the limited resources available for such activities (Pellegrini et al., 2025), this study states that both professional groups have respect for each other’s competence areas. Communicators are trusted to manage organizational channels and messaging, while researchers are recognized for their subject expertise. The Gatekeeper and Co-opetitor roles illustrate how different responsibilities sometimes lead to friction, yet they also underscore the mutual dependence of researchers and communicators. This interdependence should be supported by institutional set-ups and personal willingness to collaborate.

This study contributes to the literature (Koivumäki et al., 2021; Oliveira and Carvalho, 2023; Roedema et al., 2022) by examining how researchers and communicators work together in science communication. It shows how roles are shaped in interaction and how responsibilities are shared between the two groups. Thus, the study highlights that effective science communication cannot be fully understood without considering both the researcher’s and the communicator’s perspectives and their interplay. While earlier research has acknowledged role multiplicity and tension, these dynamics have largely been studied within each professional group separately (e.g. Horst, 2013; Negretti et al., 2022; Pellegrini et al., 2025; Sataøen et al., 2024). This study has explored those dynamics by grasping how the growing interdependence and blurred boundaries between traditional roles and new demands require collaboration, dialog and learning while preserving professionalism. These requirements are reflected in role multiplicity and fluidity, such as being, for example, both a Supporter and Coach depending on the situation at stake.

In sum, by showing how expectations are enacted in relation to one another through shared and overlapping roles, this study reinforces the view that science communication is an organizational concern (see Besley, 2020) and cannot be understood from the perspective of one professional group alone. It should be examined by reflecting on how expectations, responsibilities and roles are shaped in interaction between researchers and communicators and considering that the interdependencies between the two professional groups influence the roles adopted in specific situations.

Concerning practical implications, the findings of this study can be used by universities to improve collaboration between communicators and researchers in practice. These two professional groups often adopt different roles and are driven by different motivations. By making these roles visible and acknowledging their differences, the conditions for constructive collaboration can be strengthened. University leaders can create organizational conditions that support a more systematic interaction between researchers and communicators. Given that roles are shaped not only by personal motivation and expectations but also by organizational structures and goals, university leaders should review how their strategic priorities and incentive systems influence both professional groups. They can allocate time and resources to clearly signal that collaboration between researchers and communicators is desirable.

Leadership can create opportunities for joint reflection and dialog on researchers and communicators’ respective roles, expectations and ways of working. Recurring workshops or regular discussions about ongoing and recently completed communication activities can build mutual understanding of each other’s perspectives and professional logics. These activities need to be institutionalized and integrated into ordinary work routines.

Communicators can be involved earlier in the research process, for example during the writing of research grant applications. In so doing, science communication becomes an integrated part of the research process. Clarifying responsibilities and expectations early in the process can help reduce misunderstandings and tensions, leading to better results. Science communication can be followed up in terms of how the collaboration between researchers and communicators functions. This type of assessment can contribute to organizational learning and the long-term development of science communication.

This study has some limitations that should be acknowledged. The empirical material is based on a small sample from a single university characterized by strong teaching orientation and an aspiration to emphasize research and advance science communication. While the aim has not been to generalize, but rather to explore roles adopted in depth, future research would benefit from including more universities to be able to examine how roles are shaped across different organizational and national contexts. Also, our focus has been limited to two key professional groups: researchers and communicators within the university and to the specific situations depicted in the four RLCs covering the themes of newsworthiness, message, prioritization and visibility. However, other actors, including university leaders, communicators based in partner organizations and external stakeholders, also influence role adoption in science communication. Exploring these perspectives would offer a more complete picture of roles in science communication.

Finally, the study used RLCs as a method to uncover participants’ reflections and their roles. While this methodological tool worked well in our study, it also has limitations. The dilemmas we chose may have influenced the tensions and roles that became visible and may have directed attention to certain aspects of science communication more than others. Future studies could therefore further explore the strengths and limitations of using RLCs, both as a methodological tool for conducting research and as a reflection tool for mutual understanding and development among groups in organizations.

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by the Research Platform Verksamhetsutveckling i samverkan (FPViS). They also thank the communication department of the studied university, as well as the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet), the Sten K. Johnson Foundation, and Organisation & Samhälle for their collaboration. The authors appreciate the feedback provided by participants in the Research Projects Workshops held at the Faculty of Business, Kristianstad University, in November 2023, May 2024, and November 2024. Finally, special thanks are extended to Marijana Teljega and Pauline Stoltz for providing the authors with insightful comments on the Research Quality Day held at Kristianstad University in December 2025.