By Nayara Güércio
.
FIMI is not one problem with one solution. It keeps moving, shifting shape, adapting as it goes, often slipping past the simple explanations we try to impose on it. That is why no one project can fully capture it.
Seen together, the projects from the FIMI cluster (including ATHENA, RESONANT, ARM and DE-CONSPIRATOR) form parts of a larger picture. The challenge lies in bringing those parts into conversation.
Each project’s findings are grounded in different methods, datasets, and priorities, so what connects them is not always immediately visible. The task, then, is not only to understand what each project tells us, but also to consider how these insights can be read alongside one another.
How do we move from parallel efforts to a shared understanding? And once we do, how can that understanding inform policy and practice?
The discussion at the FIMI cluster event in Brussels on 20 March offers a practical way forward. While ATHENA was not the focus of the session, it still found its place in the wider conversation.
It begins with a simple structure. Each finding is described in a consistent way. What was discovered? What type of finding is it? What does it tell us about disinformation?
Then comes the most important step: interpretation.
Rather than stopping at “what we found”, the discussion asks “what does this mean?”. This shift may seem small, but it changes the quality of the collective exchange between the projects. It moves the focus from reporting to understanding.
The discussion also brings attention to something often overlooked: methodology and transferability. How a finding is produced matters, as does whether it can be tested or applied elsewhere. A result grounded in a controlled study does not carry the same weight as one based on limited or unclear data. Making research visible allows others to assess credibility with greater confidence.
.
How to ask the right questions
To make the discussion more useful, it helps to ask a different set of questions. Not only “is this interesting?”, but also “is this useful?”.
From this perspective, the FIMI cluster event focused on three projects and was guided by four criteria: analytical robustness, interpretative clarity, transferability, and relevance for the European Commission.
Analytical robustness asks whether the evidence is strong and the methods reliable. Interpretative clarity examines how clearly findings are explained. Transferability examines whether findings can be applied beyond its original scope and context. Relevance for the European Commission focuses on whether the insight speaks to current priorities such as disinformation, democratic resilience, or platform governance.
Each criterion was assessed on a scale from one to ten. This approach is not intended to reduce research to numbers, of course, but rather to offer a clearer overview. It helps to highlight emerging patterns, showing where findings appear both robust and useful, and where further work may be needed.
.
Working together, more effectively
It was very clear from the outset that no single project can address disinformation on its own. The strength of the FIMI cluster lies in its collective effort.
This is where the structured discussion starts to make a difference. It gives shape to a collective effort that might otherwise remain scattered. In doing so, it allows projects to learn from one another and brings into view the gaps that still remain.
In a field that never stands still, shared clarity is not a luxury. Clarity is what makes the work possible.
Collective progress in research depends on what we choose to share, and the questions we are willing to ask.
ATHENA stands firmly as part of this shared effort! Let’s see what we can do next… together!
.
Posted by: Nayara Güércio (Trilateral Research)