Open Science improves the productivity, quality and responsiveness of research, which is why the European Commission considers it a priority (European Commission, n.d.). Even though the movement is generally on the rise, there is still much work to do for it to become the common way of doing research in terms of, for instance, Open Access publishing or research data sharing (Ministry of Higher Education and Research, 2021; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018; Santoro, 2022).

One way of spreading awareness on Open Science to enhance its growth are ambassador programmes. According to literature, ambassadors cater to various needs and functions. They promote specific interests (Fisher-Buttinger & Vallaster, 2008), increasing awareness on these issues as credible spokespersons who encourage changes in attitude and behaviour through positive word-of-mouth by, for instance, involving their networks, getting access to target groups which would otherwise be hard to reach (Andersson & Ekman, 2009). Ancona and Caldwell (1988) summarise ambassadors’ actions in five aspects: developing communication channels, informing, coordinating, negotiating and influencing. Ambassadors can be active in many different areas. They can promote brands (Müller, 2018; Schmidt & Baumgarth, 2018; Vallaster & De Chernatony, 2006), organisations (Van Zoonen et al., 2014, 2018) or places (Andersson & Ekman, 2009; Chancellor et al., 2021).

Along these lines, promoting Open Science through ambassadorship is a common practice. Open Science ambassador programmes have been implemented by a range of universities (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 2024; Maastricht University, n.d.), journals (eLife Sciences Publications, 2022), PhD networks (European Council of Doctoral Candidates and Junior Researchers, n.d.; Max Planck Society, n.d.), European-funded initiatives (ENLIGHT, n.d.; EOSC-Pillar, n.d.) and non-profit organisations (Software Heritage, n.d.). Despite the prevalence of Open Science ambassador programmes, literature on how to establish them is scant. So far, to our knowledge, the existing literature only briefly touches on Open Science ambassador programmes in the frame of larger initiatives (Armeni et al., 2021; Knauer & Westerhof, 2024), has a constrained focus (Olyhoek et al., 2018) or addresses library staff instead of researchers (Fernández-Marcial & González-Solar, 2021; Sewell & Kingsley, 2017). By outlining our programme in detail, we expand the current knowledge on Open Science ambassador programmes. In this vein, we intend this paper to serve as a means of inspiration for others interested in setting up similar programmes.

The frame in which our programme was conceptualised and implemented is the European Reform University Alliance (ERUA). Here, the ERUA Open Science Ambassador Programme was a deliverable of project Re:ERUA (“Re:” stands for research), which aimed at developing ERUA’s research trajectory (European Commission, 2024). In its first funding phase, ERUA comprised of five universities: New Bulgarian University (Bulgaria), Roskilde University (Denmark), University of the Aegean (Greece), University of Konstanz (Germany) and University of Paris 8 (France). Re:ERUA ran from October 2021 until September 2024. The ERUA Open Science Ambassador Programme commenced only towards the end of the project, officially starting in January 2024 (see the programme’s website: https://archive.erua-eui.eu/open-science/open-science-ambassadors/). As the lead of the Re:ERUA work package on Open Science, the University of Konstanz’ Team Open Science was in charge of the programme.

This article conveys our approach with regards to conceptualising the programme. It also showcases what we achieved in the relatively short time span during which the programme ran and elaborates on the challenges we faced. In this vein, the paper sheds light on the ambassadors’ activities in the final months of Re:ERUA after the programme’s official launch. To this end, we will first introduce the programme’s objectives and motivations as well as the risks we detected when planning the programme. On this basis, we will outline how we implemented the programme, reflecting back to whether and how the risks we had predicted materialised. On this basis, we shall provide recommendations. To get there, we will first illuminate how we recruited our ambassadors before delineating how we equipped them with knowledge and material. Subsequently, we will present the ambassadors’ activities. We shall conclude the article with an outlook chapter that explains which challenges the programme may face in the long run. We hope that this publication will serve as a means of inspiration for others who may be interested in setting up similar programmes.

Based on the research proposal behind the Re:ERUA project, the ERUA Open Science Ambassador Programme was planned to pursue three core objectives: promoting Open Science, advancing institutional Open Science development and creating synergies within the ambassador network.

The ambassador concept faced certain challenges and risks we had to bear in mind to yield success. The most obvious risk we detected was finding volunteers who would take on the role as ERUA Open Science Ambassadors. We expected this to be challenging as most researchers have busy schedules and as we could not offer them any financial reward. Moreover, we were aware that the programme’s success would depend on individual aspects like an ambassador’s recognition within their academic community or their communicative skills. On a less individual note, we knew it would be important to factor in intercultural aspects as academic environments vary across countries. Along these lines, we planned for the programme’s implementation as well as the respective ambassadors’ degrees and forms of involvement to vary across ERUA. Along these lines, the programme did not presuppose any fixed expectations for the ambassadors, both to minimise its risk of failure and to give the ambassadors plenty of creative space. We deemed both elements important prerequisites for the programme as a whole to flourish independently from each institution’s individual contributions.

We planned for each university to appoint one or more ambassadors, preferably researchers from assistant professor level upwards. At this stage, we expected early-career researchers to be more receptive to the role for profile-related reasons. We strove for researchers as they were part of the main target group we wanted the ambassadors to reach and thus in many regards closer to the researchers than Open Science professionals. In similar terms, we assumed professors to be more influential than Open Science professionals and thus to be more impactful as ambassadors. Apart from that, we wanted the ambassadors to cover different disciplines and to be knowledgeable about as well as experienced in Open Science, especially with regards to the core topics Open Access, Open Data/Research Data Management (RDM) and Open Educational Resources (OER). Apart from that, we wanted them to be committed to their role at least until Re:ERUA’s end in September 2024 to make sure that the programme would be operational throughout the rest of the project duration. To this end, we felt it was important for them to have an affinity for ERUA or at least, to be open-minded about the alliance and its goals. At the same time, we wanted to encourage the ambassadors to fill their roles beyond September 2024 to the end of creating a more permanent network in the alliance beyond the Re:ERUA project.

As expected, the recruitment process differed across universities. At two universities, members of the Re:ERUA Open Science work package became Open Science ambassadors. One of them was an established and active work package member, the other was rather new to the work package. At the other two universities, the work package members of these universities contacted suitable researchers at their institutions for the role. In both cases, the work package board members used their personal networks to find suitable candidates, contacting researchers they had been in touch with, for instance within the scope of earlier Open Science-related measures.

To succeed, we knew it would be crucial to emphasise the benefits associated with the role as a means of incentivisation, such as networking opportunities with researchers which we expected might lead to research cooperations. Beyond that, we stressed as advantages the increasing importance of non-publication-related activities in career development as well as the ambassadors’ potential higher visibility at their home institution, which we assumed might help, for instance, new professors attract students to their courses. Moreover, we chose to elaborate on the scope of the ambassadors’ role, such as possible activities, to make the role tangible. At the same time, we stressed the option of not having to spend too much time on designing extra activities, but instead to (re-)frame – and perhaps adapt – ongoing activities as ambassador activities. We did so to show that an involvement in the programme was likely to require less efforts than some candidates might have assumed. Along the same lines, we made sure to encourage every ambassador to bring their individual time-related capacities and their own ideas to the table. Beyond that, we decided to emphasise the candidates’ involvement in a multidisciplinary network of ambassadors to convey that they did not have to feel responsible for or knowledgeable about all academic disciplines they might get in touch with. At the same time, we stressed that we would not expect them to carry the programme as individuals, but as part of a network of peers. Based on these experiences, we recommend providing examples of researchers who are thriving in their ambassador role as a means of inspiration and support.

As expected, the recruitment process as well as the ambassadors’ motivation to accept the role varied from country to country. Inquiring the ambassadors about their motivation after recruitment revealed that intrinsic motives prevailed. Ambassadors described themselves as passionate about specific areas of Open Science, wanting to promote these areas and to leverage their role in order to contribute to their own institution (e.g. by fostering a creative and collaborative culture), the research community (e.g. by enhancing collaboration) as well as the wider society (e.g. by supporting evidence-based policy-making). Widening their horizons and developing new competences, such as improving their own Open Science skills and learning about others’ practices, were further drivers. Apart from that, extrinsic motives played a role, such as the advantages of having an “official” title, which one ambassador considered beneficial for a funding application. Furthermore, what won people over was the organisers promising the ambassadors continuous support. Besides that, rapport with the organising team as well as assuring the ambassadors that the role could be filled with little efforts proved helpful.

One institution communicated predicting a comparatively low demand in contributing to the ambassador programme, having already focused on building administrative support for Open Science as part of its research support. This meant that recruiting an Open Science ambassador was not a top priority for this institution. While this was, in synergetic and capacity-related terms, a bit of a setback, it ended up not having a negative impact on the programme as a whole as we had factored in that kind of imbalance in involvement from the beginning to make sure that the programme could work independently from individual contributions.

Despite one university not participating, the ambassador programme ended up involving academics from different disciplines and Open Science-related specialisations. As expected, two early-career researchers accepted the role. Moreover, we managed to recruit two mid-career researchers. Table 1 provides an overview.

Once we had recruited all of our ambassadors, we organised a virtual kick-off meeting as the programme’s official launch. The kick-off’s objectives were to let the ambassadors get to know each other, and to let them exchange their motivations and experiences on Open Science, especially with regard to the different disciplines they represented. Apart from that, we wanted to talk about their ideas on promoting Open Science and to discuss the next steps to get the programme going. Furthermore, we pointed to useful material and offerings developed within Re:ERUA, such as the two Open Science courses.

As previously mentioned, we planned to discuss the specific activities with the ambassadors to ensure that all activities would be compatible with their interests and schedules. Moreover, to enhance the ambassadors’ intrinsic motivation, we deemed it paramount to encourage them to bring in their own ideas. Beyond enhancing motivation, we hoped that involving their ideas would lead to more genuine and more multi-facetted activities than what we might propose. Beyond that, we deemed it important to suggest to the ambassadors the involvement of concrete Open Science-related examples, such as case studies, to make Open Science graspable, especially for players with little Open Science experience.

After recruiting the ambassadors, we organised a train-the-trainer programme to provide them with the knowledge and the skills required for their position. Train-the-trainer programmes have been successful in Open Science for years (Biernacka et al., 2024; Brinken et al., 2019). As the ambassadors had different areas of Open Science expertise (see Table 1), the train-the-trainer programme was designed to build up basic competences in all three Open Science core topics, i.e. Open Access, Open Data/RDM and OER. Beyond that, the programme raised the ambassadors’ awareness of discipline-specific differences within Open Science, for instance with regards to potential reservations of researchers with a humanities background. It involved three units in total for which the organisers recruited experts as instructors from the University of Konstanz’ Team Open Science, offering one 45-minute session per core topic. Each session included an expert presentation of around 25 minutes; the rest of the meetings was reserved for questions and discussions. Table 2 sums up the key information.

In addition to the train-the-trainer programme, we provided the ambassadors with promotion material. In collaboration with the Open Science work package and the University of Konstanz’ Team Open Science communication expert, we created a modifiable flyer template and a poster (see Appendix 1 and 2). In both templates, the ambassadors could insert their personal details, add any other information they deemed useful, or translate the text.

The flyer was designed as a foldable A5 8-pager with the aim to provide not only information on the ambassadors, but also on core areas of Open Science. It contains pages on the principles and advantages of Open Science in general as well as on Open Access, Open Data/RDM and OER. For more information, the flyer involves QR codes which, for instance, lead to the two Open Science courses or to well-known information portals. For online usage, textual links could replace the QR codes. Beyond that, the flyer provides general information on the ambassadors as well as a frame for details about the ambassador using the material. Apart from our own use of the flyers, we encouraged the ambassadors to use it in their communication, ideally via a range of different channels to ensure an optimal extent of dissemination (e.g. website, email, social media, personal communication). In addition to that, we created a poster template in collaboration with our communication expert and the project’s Open Science work package. We designed the poster as a predominantly visual eye-catcher with placeholders, like the ones in the flyer, for the ambassadors’ personal and contact details.

As one of our first steps, we asked the ERUA website’s administrators to build a subpage with short profiles for each ambassador as a low-threshold information offering. To get there, we had created a profile template, defining some information about each ambassador as mandatory (name, position, discipline, area of Open Science expertise, e-mail address, picture), while the ambassadors were free to provide additional details such as a quote and links to websites, social media accounts or ORCID profiles (see the website here: https://archive.erua-eui.eu/open-science/open-science-ambassadors/). For communicative purposes, we equipped two of our ambassadors with functional e-mail addresses, which we embedded on the website. Together, the organisers and ambassadors decided that the organisers would change information on the website at any stage upon the ambassadors’ request. Unfortunately, creating the webpage took very long. In comparable situations in the future, the organisers will try to get in contact with the respective website administrators early on so there is enough time for setting up the website. In general terms, getting in touch early with website administrators comes highly recommended if others interested in setting up similar programmes want to set up a website outside their home institution.

Apart from a website, we deemed creative social media content valuable to reach a broad audience. Here, we recommend factoring in the ambassadors’ individual practices and levels of affinity to producing social media content. We shall discuss this in greater detail when shedding light on the ambassadors’ activities. Another way of introducing Open Science ambassadors, which we did not get to use, might be at events, at research group meetings or symposia, or via university-wide media such as newsletters. Along these dissemination-related lines, it is uncertain how the individual universities raised and spread awareness on their ambassadors, i.e. where and how they employ, for example, the flyers and the posters. If Re:ERUA had run for a longer period of time, one of our next steps would have been to share and exchange dissemination-related experiences to learn from each other to the end of promoting the programme on a larger scale.

This subchapter provides an overview of our ambassadors’ activities. These reflect the ERUA Open Science Ambassador Programme’s aims: promoting Open Science, advancing institutional Open Science development and creating synergies within the ambassador network. In the following, we will give examples of the ambassadors’ activities and planned activities pertaining to these three aims. All activities took place from the programme’s official launch in January 2024 until the Re:ERUA project’s end in September 2024. Some activities were part of the ambassadors’ regular work, while they engaged in others specifically due to their ambassadorial role.

Due to their diverse academic and Open Science backgrounds as well as their motivation, all four researchers have proven to be very good fits as ambassadors. However, independently from the ambassadors’ motivation and involvement, our programme is facing two issues related to the short timespan the programme has been running: keeping the programme alive and discrepancies between aims and results. In the following, we will elaborate on these issues and propose recommendations for other institutions.

Researchers who take on the role as Open Science ambassadors, building bridges between academic support departments and the research community, are valuable when it comes to advancing Open Science. The ERUA Open Science Ambassador Programme involves researchers that are competent in Open Science, acting as contact points to provide a low-threshold opportunity for peers or students who want to find out more about Open Science. Apart from that, the ambassadors actively promote Open Science within their institutional structures as well as among peers and other target groups. To form a fruitful ambassador network, a good mix of academic disciplines as well as areas of Open Science expertise is paramount. Besides that, one of the most important things to consider when building up an ambassador programme is time. It takes time to recruit the ambassadors, to let them get to know their role and to raise awareness of Open Science at their universities in synergy. An ambassador programme strongly profits from a long-term perspective, so everyone thinking about building up such a programme should make sure that the structures behind the programme have the chance to be maintained over an extensive period of time. Moreover, we recommend factoring in copious time for organisational issues such as developing and publishing communication measures. It is also crucial to emphasise the programme’s importance within its setting and to clarify responsibilities early so all measures can be realised on time.