Participation as an opportunity and a challenge
Why a new position paper is important for co-creation in EU-funded research projects
Why a New Position Paper Matters for Co-Creation in EU-funded Research Projects
A recently published position paper, Partizipation als Zu-Mutung (Participation as Imposition) offers a critical yet constructive analysis of the systemic shortcomings that hinder participatory research — particularly in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.
It outlines 13 structural barriers that often prevent stakeholder engagement from becoming meaningful, effective, and sustainable. The paper also offers concrete proposals to improve funding structures, evaluation logic, and ethical standards for participatory research — making it highly relevant not only nationally, but for European R&I policy as well.
Insights from EU projects in Horizon Europe, Horizon 2020 and FP7
At ARTTIC Innovation, we recognise many of these challenges from our experience working across Horizon Europe (HE), Horizon 2020 (H2020), and FP7 projects.
While we do not lead participatory or co-creation processes ourselves, we collaborate closely with partners who do — by shaping the strategic, administrative, and communication frameworks that enable participation to happen.
Our work in proposal design, coordination support, dissemination, exploitation planning, and stakeholder engagement places us at the interface between research teams, societal actors, and institutional funders. This gives us insight into the tensions between participatory ambition and structural constraints.
Across the projects we have been involved in – including AGILE, R2D2-MH, DRIVER+, CURSOR, and others – we’ve observed both the transformative potential and the systemic frictions that participatory approaches encounter in practice.
Engagement is often undermined when:
- Projects lack flexibility to adapt to stakeholder needs
- Funding for essential coordination, translation, facilitation, and relationship work is insufficient
- Evaluation frameworks undervalue non-technical outcomes such as trust-building or lived experience
- Project timelines are too short for long-term engagement. This limits the gradual development of trust and ownership among community partners
Relevance of the Position Paper for European Funding Policy and Research Structures
The paper Partizipation als Zu-Mutung provides a timely and well-founded basis to advocate for more supportive research structures — both in national systems and across EU programmes — and aligns with the European Commission’s evolving policy direction toward inclusive, participatory, and societally responsive research.
This paper is not only relevant to national funders and research institutions in the German-speaking world — its findings resonate with a broader range of EU research stakeholders: policymakers, ethics committees, evaluators, project coordinators, proposal writers, innovation managers and funders who aim to enhance the way co-creation is funded, implemented, and valued.
That’s why we’re reflecting on its content: to highlight where structural barriers still exist, and what can be done to address them in Horizon Europe and the next framework programme (FP10).
A timely diagnosis rooted in cross-disciplinary expertise
Jointly developed by over 30 scholars and funded by VolkswagenStiftung, the paper draws on interdisciplinary expertise from the social sciences, technology design, health, education and cultural studies.
It delivers scientifically grounded, policy-relevant guidance for improving participatory research systems across Europe.
Where our experience connects
The paper’s key positions resonate with insights gained through our involvement in EU-funded projects that prioritise stakeholder engagement and participatory approaches, especially through co-creation – a structured, collaborative process between researchers and societal actors from project design to implementation.
Horizon Europe projects like:
- AGILE (Cluster 3) – Focused on more secure societies, with co-creation activities led by partners specialised in participatory security research
- R2D2-MH (Cluster 1) – Focused on resilience and well-being of neurodivergent people, with co-creation guided by organisations with expertise in mental health and community-based innovation
These build on earlier efforts in H2020 and FP7. One of the most influential examples was DRIVER+ (FP7) – a flagship project in European civil protection that pioneered large-scale participatory practices in crisis management through:
- A pan-European Test-bed
- A practitioner-oriented Portfolio of Solutions
- Live demonstrations co-designed with end users
The most enduring legacy of DRIVER+ is CMINE – a community platform originally established by ARTTIC, which is now a coordination and policy forum under Horizon Europe Cluster 3. It hosts two recognized clusters – Societal Resilience and Responder Technology – that continue to shape evidence-based policy well beyond their lifetime.
Participatory research further evolved under H2020 through projects like:
Challenges we’ve observed across projects
While many projects demonstrated how co-creation can be meaningfully embedded in EU research, particularly in technical and policy-oriented environments, we still observe recurring limitations:
- Co-creation is often treated as a secondary, not a central, method – particularly in FP7 and early H2020
- Inflexible project formats
- Insufficient budgets for participatory work
- Evaluation and reporting frameworks that don’t adequately recognize non-technical outcomes
These experiences have informed how we work with consortia to design and implement projects that are better aligned with evolving participatory ambitions — many of which are now more visible in in Horizon Europe.
A shift in Horizon Europe – and where gaps remain
Horizon Europe 2025-2027 signals stronger policy-level commitment to participation across clusters, particularly:
- Cluster 1 – Health: Patient and citizen involvement in mental health, digital and equity-focused research
- Cluster 2 & 6: Emphasis on participatory democracy, cultural transformation, environmental sustainability, and food systems
- Cluster 3 – Civil security: Co-creation in societal resilience, disaster preparedness, and innovation trust
- Cluster 5 – Climate, Energy & Mobility: Societal readiness pilots test participatory R&I models for FP10 topics
- Missions & CSAs: Continue to enable open, iterative engagement formats
But the challenges highlighted in the position paper persist: underfunded care work, rigid deliverables, and symbolic involvement still limit meaningful engagement.
What’s the problem?
The paper outlines 13 systemic challenges, many of which echo what we and our partners see in EU projects:
- Invisible labour: Communication, translation, care, and facilitation work are vital but unfunded
- Rigid deliverables: Pre-defined project plans don’t accommodate open-ended processes
- Conflict avoidance: Participation is often seen as promoting harmony, rather than as a platform for productive dissent
- Short-termism: Community trust rarely fits within 2- to 3-year project cycles
Why this goes beyond national contexts
Though focused on national research systems in Germany (DFG, BMBF, VolkswagenStiftung) and experiences from German-speaking Austria (FWF) and Switzerland (SNF), the position paper’s insights apply widely to Horizon Europe 2025-2027. While HE has made progress towards inclusive, impact-oriented research, structural barriers to meaningful participation persist — even compared to national systems.
- Cluster 1 (Health) – Strong policy support emphasizing citizen and patient engagement, but still limited flexibility in practice
- Cluster 2 (Culture, Creativity, Inclusive Society) – Participatory goals are clear, but frameworks don’t yet allow for community-led research dynamics across the full lifecycle of a project
- Cluster 3 (Civil Security for Society) – Growing engagement for foresight, vulnerable group engagement, and localised security solutions but often secondary to technical or operational goals
- Cluster 5 (Climate, Energy and Mobility) – Societal readiness pilots are promising with seven topics in 2025 , but just starting
- Cluster 6 (Food, Bioeconomy, Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment) – Multi-actor models encouraged for e.g. co-design with rural, farming, or indigenous communities, but under-resourced
Recommendations we echo
From the paper’s 13 recommendations, we highlight as particularly relevant for future EU programmes:
- Tailor participation to project phases — not all require full-scale co-design
- Fund care, communication & relationship work as central elements
- Support proactive, bottom-up co-definition of research agendas
- Evaluation criteria aligned with participatory logic — rather than relying on traditional academic metrics
- Accept disagreement as legitimate and productive
- Equip grassroots partners with adequate and flexible financial tools – not just subcontracting to ensure they can fully participate, contribute, and lead where relevant
How we contribute
These principles closely align with how we approach our work — supporting consortia in developing realistic, inclusive frameworks from the proposal stage through implementation.
In these contexts, ARTTIC Innovation contributes expertise in:
- Hands-on project management and coordination support
- Close cooperation with partners
- Strategic dissemination and communication
- Stakeholder engagement and strategic planning of exploitation pathways
We work alongside partners leading participatory activities to help ensure visibility, uptake, and long-term impact of results.
Let’s not wait
Participation is not a box to tick. It’s a demanding yet rewarding mode of research that requires the right conditions – structurally, financially, and ethically.
The paper Partizipation als Zu-Mutung adds scientific weight to what many practitioners already know — and gives policymakers, funders, and peer institutions a concrete foundation for action.
We believe it’s time to move from “inviting participation” to embedding it as an operational standard in European research.
Resources
- Full position paper (in German): http://partizipation-als-zu-mutung.de/
- More on our ongoing co-creation projects:
– AGILE: https://www.arttic-innovation.de/en/funded-projects/agile/
– R2D2-MH: https://www.arttic-innovation.de/en/funded-projects/r2d2-mh/
About this article
This article reflects the perspectives and project experience of ARTTIC Innovation, based on its long-standing involvement in European R&I initiatives focused on stakeholder engagement, co-creation, and strategic dissemination.
It was developed collaboratively by ARTTIC Innovation’s expert team: Tanja Oster, Chloé Scordel, Claudia Speiser, Andreas Seipelt, Balazs Kern, and Karin Rosenits.
Learn more: https://www.arttic-innovation.de/en/arttic-team/
R&D tax credits (Forschungszulage) or ZIM? A choice without agony
R&D tax credits (Forschungszulage) or ZIM? - A choice without agony -R&D tax credits vs. ZIM: The initial scenarioIn practice, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) ask themselves which national funding programme they should pursue for their research and...
Why the carousel of amendments to the R&D tax credit law continues to turn
The R&D tax credits in 2024The year 2024 has proven to be decisive for the German R&D tax credits. Following the most recent amendment as part of the Growth Opportunities Act in March, the Federal Government realized during the budget consultations for 2025...
The R&D tax credit with a blind eye to earnings –
Why loss-making companies (wrongly) hesitate
Recapitulation The German R&D tax credit has become much more popular in recent years after a modest response following the introduction of the instrument. This can be seen not only in advertising and studies by various associations, but also in the bare figures...
