From Paris to Prague: at the heart of Europe with the 4EU+ Visiting Professorships programme

Why did you decide to apply for the 4EU+ Visiting Professorships programme?

Nelly Quemener: As director of the Gripic laboratory (Groupe de recherches interdisciplinaires sur les processus d'information et de communication at Celsa and Sorbonne University), I was hoping to give a European dimension to a project for a research chair on media and democracy.

A recent conference at the University of Warsaw, a member of the 4EU+ European University Alliance, had convinced me of the need to expand the scope of our research. Together with the laboratory’s deputy director, Valérie-Jeanne Perrier, we saw the programme as the ideal vehicle for taking our research to a European level. We felt this scale was essential for analysing the rise of populism and ‘illiberal’ trends which are challenging our democratic models.

On a more personal level, this Visiting Professorship fulfilled a desire to reconnect with the international community. Whilst basic sciences may navigate international networks more easily, the social sciences sometimes lack the time and opportunities to develop this international outlook. Consequently, this stay abroad came at the perfect time in my career as a researcher.
 

What was the focus of your project at Charles University in Prague?

N.Q.: My project focused on ‘Media, Europe, Democracy’. I developed it with Valérie-Jeanne Perrier, deputy director of the Gripic Laboratory and professor in information and communication sciences at Celsa, and Alice Němcová Tejkalová, head of the Department of Journalism at Charles University.

We had defined several key areas. The first was educational and aimed to develop programmes for students in the Department of Journalism, in close collaboration with the Department of Communication and Marketing.

The second concerned research: creating opportunities for dialogue between researchers, particularly through our conference, but also taking the time to gain a better understanding of our respective approaches and identify shared perspectives. Visiting Professorships and European university alliances offer the time needed for networking and the birth of new projects.

This visit enabled me to engage with in-depth discussions with my colleagues at Charles University and explore avenues for collaboration and funding, notably through the Synergy or SEED schemes provided by 4EU+. We adopted a highly inductive approach: starting with a broad general theme to gradually identify a shared research angle.

Finally, a third aspect focused on PhD students, who are a priority for our laboratory. I led a doctoral seminar in order to foster exchanges and encourage mobility. The aim is to strengthen the European dimension of study programmes, particularly through summer schools, workshops and opportunities for joint supervision, which remain at the heart of long-term research collaborations.
 

Could you briefly tell us about the conference you organised on ‘Media, Democracy and Europe’?

N.Q.: Our symposium brought together researchers from four 4EU+ member universities, in a hybrid format: Charles University, Sorbonne University (with two colleagues from Gripic), and the universities of Copenhagen and Warsaw.

It took place the day after Viktor Orbán’s failed re-election in Hungary. Given that the Czech Republic shares a close geographical and political proximity with Hungary, there was naturally a great deal of interest in the subject.

One of the symposium’s key strengths was how diverse the approaches were, allowing us to identify several common lines of inquiry. In Copenhagen, the research focused primarily on populism, affects and emotions in political campaigns. In Warsaw, the research centred more on models of media organisation and funding and their influence on how information is shared. For our part, at Sorbonne University, we shared our work on journalism, media dynamics and the effects of media hype and controversy. Finally, colleagues from Charles University presented their research on journalism and media literacy.

These discussions helped to identify opportunities for collaboration on the changing nature of European public debate, populism, the rise of the far right and the ‘illiberal’ context - a form of liberalism that is no longer truly liberal, in that it tends towards a form of authoritarianism.
 

Did you notice any significant differences between French and Czech universities? Are there any aspects of the Czech academic environment that you particularly appreciated and that you intend to incorporate into your research and teaching activities in Paris?

N.Q.: I was struck by the strong European ethos at Charles University, both in its approach to research and in the way it develops its institutional projects. This focus is reflected notably in a strong commitment to the Horizon Europe programmes, in both research and institutional initiatives.

For example, the university was rewarded by Horizon Europe for its inclusion and equality policies, which has reinforced this momentum and is a source of institutional pride.

At a time when higher education institutions are seeking to diversify their funding sources, this ability to conceive projects on a European scale strikes me as particularly interesting. It does, however, mean accepting a degree of uncertainty; not all projects succeed, but this culture of openness and European outlook is inspiring.

More broadly, the experience reinforced my belief that Europe should not be viewed as a distant horizon, but as a scale which we should systematically consider in the development of research projects and institutional collaborations.

As Vice-President for Equality, Diversity and Inclusion at Sorbonne University, how do you intend to draw on the experience you gained at Charles University and with 4EU+ during your term?

N.Q.: What is striking, when talking to colleagues at Charles University and in Warsaw, is seeing how European directives have prompted each country to introduce measures, particularly in regard to sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) and discrimination. These measures have not been implemented in the same way everywhere. We are all still searching for our own model, and it is always interesting to see how others operate.

At Charles University, for example, they have developed numerous support initiatives with students, even though this can raise questions relating to the training of these students and their responsibilities, for example in the context of reporting sexual and gender-based violence.

They have also set up an Equality Board, a committee bringing together the university’s 17 faculties. This is a policy-making body for which we do not really have an equivalent here at Sorbonne University.

This made me reflect on the formalisation of equality policies between faculties and how strategies are implemented across the institution, which remains an ongoing challenge. This dissemination must be achieved both through political representation within our faculties and through concrete actions involving administrative and academic staff. This Equality Board creates an interesting environment for discussion, and it is a source of inspiration that I will bear in mind.

Did the programme help you to forge lasting ties with colleagues at Charles University for the future?

N.Q.: Yes, absolutely. We adopted an inductive approach with our colleagues at Charles University, using this visit to discover each other’s work and get to know one another. Building on this emerging network, we can now explore new opportunities, such as the 4EU+ Seed and Synergy funding schemes. The challenge remains the same: coming up with ideas is one thing, but we then need to secure funding, find the energy to drive projects forward and identify the right people to work with us.

This approach has paid off. The conference and discussions have inspired us to build on our momentum, with the aim of developing more ambitious projects, whilst taking the time to build something solid.

As a researcher, I feel a sense of urgency to work on issues relating to media and democracy. It is now or never. There is no guarantee that in five years’ time we will still have the freedom or the opportunity to do so. This question is being asked within Europe, and we must make use of every available means. In information and communication studies, we are at the very heart of public debate. We cannot envisage our political future without questioning the organisation of the media, the role of emotions and AI, or the words we use to describe current affairs.

For example, we debated the term ‘propaganda’ at length. We abandoned this concept in France a long time ago, believing ourselves to be protected by our democratic system. But considering the situation in Hungary or the war in Ukraine, we can understand why our fellow colleagues still use it. Faced with these contemporary crises, we have real expertise to offer and much to gain from adopting a European perspective. This Visiting Professorship made it possible to embody this necessity. I now feel fully equipped to continue building the future alongside my colleagues.
 

What would you say to professors at Sorbonne University who are considering applying for the programme?

N.Q.: I would tell them to go for it. It’s important to make the most of this type of funding, which enables short-term mobility opportunities which are flexible enough to fit into an academic schedule. These formats can support ongoing projects that require time to exchange ideas but can also help to structure emerging initiatives.

It is also a valuable opportunity to meet teams in person and forge collaborations without being away from home for too long.

More broadly speaking, we must seize these opportunities whilst they are available. In the current climate, where research funding remains limited - particularly in the humanities and social sciences - these schemes play an important role. Through successive stages and targeted funding, they often enable more ambitious and transformative projects to emerge.