communication activities in research

Research to Action

The Global Guide to Research Impact

Social Media

Strategic communication

7 principles for doing meaningful research communications

By Emilie Wilson , Vivienne Benson , Samantha Reddin , Ben O'Donovan-Iland , Annabel Fenton , Sophie Marsden , Roxana-Alina Vaduva and Alice Webb 25/02/2022

At IDS, we believe that evidence-based research plays a vital role in bringing about a more equitable and sustainable world. And to achieve this, we are committed to communicating research beyond academic audiences and journal articles.

However, we are very aware of the responsibility we have in shaping and delivering meaningful research communications. We are tackling complicated and sensitive issues and the communications process and content should reflect that. That is why we have developed 7 guiding principles to underpin our approach to research communications – throughout the lifetime of a project or programme.

1. Enabling

When it comes to engaging stakeholders and audiences in a targeted and meaningful way, the research team have relationships and networks beyond the reach of communications specialists, which need to be used. Researchers and partners share findings and messages at meetings and events, have one-to-one conversations and send direct communications, or engage with social media. These are all key communications tactics. Project support staff are also often heavily involved in engaging stakeholders and organising events. They can be seen as the ‘face’ of the project for partners, as a key point of contact.

Our role as communicators is to enable and facilitate our colleagues, partners, and networks to communicate in a way that fosters these important and individual relationships.

2. Context-specific

Most projects and programmes will set time and resources aside for scoping research questions in different contexts – be this geographical or sectoral. They will also ensure the right partners are on board with relevant local expertise. It is equally important to take this approach for successful research communications and uptake, for example looking at the media and social media landscape, mapping digital inequalities and internet penetration. There can be difficult dynamics to consider in many of the countries and settings in which we conduct our research. This can be a result of aid being increasingly targeted at fragile, violent or conflict-affected settings or the shrinking civic space.

Underpinning our work is a commitment to lead activities and work with partners to understand and remain up to date on ‘context’. This ultimately means that we create communications (often in partnership) that are sensitive to the different contexts and settings we navigate.

3. Targeted and agile

Understanding the ‘who’ is fundamental for reaching and delivering meaningful communications and engagement. Without that knowledge, we would only create general, or worse, irrelevant communications that don’t mean anything to our key stakeholders. We have connected the ‘targeted’ to keeping our communications ‘agile’ as we are committed to communications that are responsive to the times and to the needs of our stakeholders.

By embedding this approach in projects and programmes, research communications has much more impact and relevance to the context.

4. Creative

Creative communications is as simple as it sounds. It’s about keeping an open mind and identifying the approach, format and content for your communications that engages your target audience most effectively. This involves thinking not only about the content you create (i.e., through visual, digital and written) but also the spaces and ways in which you might share and engage.

Being creative in how we communicate leads to greater clarity in our messaging. It also means we are open to new and relevant opportunities that might be outside our usual approach. It also allows for flexibility and scope to bring in partners and key stakeholders into shaping our communications.

5. Data-driven

Data analysis is a key aspect of successfully communicating impact. It provides an accurate understanding of the outcomes of our communications, which helps the team make informed decisions and accurately shape communications throughout the lifetime of the project.

What can happen if you don’t take the time to analyse the impact of communications? The phrase ‘if you throw enough mud at a wall, some of it will stick’ comes to mind. Imagine that your research paper gets great engagement in Uganda – do you understand why it got engagement, who was reading it, and what they did after reading it? If you understand and document that, can you incorporate more of that into your communications approach going forward?

Data collation can range from social media metrics to engagement at an event, to testimonials. Without the proper tools and processes in place to analyse your data, you can lose on valuable opportunities to target content and drive more engagement.

6. Decolonised

When applied to development, a decolonial lens questions the underlying assumptions: that Western progress is aspirational, and that former colonies are ‘behind’ because they fall short in terms of mainstream socioeconomic indicators.

When it comes to communications, the same power hegemonies and assumed moralities influence how we communicate about (and communicate to) marginalised individuals, communities, countries, and regions. We are working towards decolonised communications by continuously questioning our approach, and ourselves: this includes being more conscious about asking who the right people are to do the communications, questioning what we show (vocabulary, images), how we put it together (our suppliers, who’s doing the talking), and who we are targeting (our audience, translation, and accessibility).

7. Accessible

Accessibility in communications is about inclusivity, making sure that everyone can access and understand research. Accessible communications encompass all media types and takes different forms depending on individual or group needs.

Accessible communication materials must be clear and understandable, easy to access and navigate, and respect people’s different needs. It is at the heart of aesthetics and design, and is included for all video, aural, digital, print and web media. People living with disability should, where possible, be involved in the production and delivery of communications materials, such as writing blogs or speaking at events; they should be heard and not spoken for.

We aim to review our accessibility methods on a regular basis to ensure they are working and improving; this includes getting feedback from people living with disabilities.

This article was first published on the IDS Opinions blog .

Contribute Write a blog post, post a job or event, recommend a resource

Partner with Us Are you an institution looking to increase your impact?

Most Recent Posts

• Youth-focused initiatives: Youth and Social Justice Futures Project
• There are many pathways to impact
• Theories of Change: A guide to monitoring and evaluating policy influence
• Lessons for capacity building in developing countries
• Recognising Africa’s evidence actors

Last week's #R2AImpactPractitioners post shared a report, from the Institute for Government, filled with practical strategies to boost the impact of academic research in policy. 🔗🔗Follow the link in our bio to read the full article. #PolicyEngagement #ResearchImpact #EIDM

As part of our new Youth Inclusion and Engagement Space we are profiling some of the initiatives having real impact in this area. First up it's @GAGEprogramme... Gender and Adolescence: Global Evidence (GAGE) is a groundbreaking ten-year research initiative led by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI). From 2015 to 2025, GAGE is following the lives of 20,000 adolescents across six low- and middle-income countries in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, generating the world’s largest dataset on adolescence. GAGE’s mission is clear: to identify effective strategies that help adolescent boys and girls break free from poverty, with a strong focus on the most vulnerable, in line with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). By understanding how gender norms influence young people’s lives, GAGE provides invaluable insights to inform policies and programs at every level. The program has already made significant impacts. GAGE evidence was instrumental in shaping Ethiopia's first National Plan on Adolescent and Sexual Reproductive Health and enhancing UNICEF’s Jordan Hajati Cash for Education program. Beyond policy change, GAGE elevates youth voices through their podcast series, exploring topics like civic engagement, activism, and leadership. In crisis contexts like Gaza, GAGE advocates for the inclusion of adolescents in peace processes, addressing the severe mental health challenges and social isolation faced by young people, particularly girls. GAGE also fosters skill development and research opportunities for youth, encouraging young researchers to publish their work. Impressively, around half of GAGE’s outputs have co-authors from the Global South. 👉 Learn more about GAGE’s impactful work by following the Youth Inclusion link on our Linktree. 🔗🔗

The latest #R2AImpactPractitioners post features an article by Karen Bell and Mark Reed on the Tree of Participation (ToP) model, a groundbreaking framework designed to enhance inclusive decision-making. By identifying 12 key factors and 7 contextual elements, ToP empowers marginalized groups and ensures processes that are inclusive, accountable, and balanced in power dynamics. The model uses a tree metaphor to illustrate its phases: roots (pre-process), branches (process), and leaves (post-process), all interconnected within their context. Discover more by following the #R2Aimpactpractitioners link in our linktree 👉🔗

Research To Action (R2A) is a learning platform for anyone interested in maximising the impact of research and capturing evidence of impact.

The site publishes practical resources on a range of topics including research uptake, communications, policy influence and monitoring and evaluation. It captures the experiences of practitioners and researchers working on these topics and facilitates conversations between this global community through a range of social media platforms.

R2A is produced by a small editorial team, led by CommsConsult . We welcome suggestions for and contributions to the site.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Our contributors

Browse all authors

Friends and partners

• Global Development Network (GDN)
• Institute of Development Studies (IDS)
• International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie)
• On Think Tanks
• Politics & Ideas
• Research for Development (R4D)
• Research Impact

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Can Oncol Nurs J
• v.27(3); Summer 2017

Communicating your research

Several years of Research Reflections have provided instruction and supportive guidance to assist both novice and advanced scholars in conducting and appraising nursing research. From developing a strong research question to critically evaluating the quality of a published study, the ultimate purpose of nursing research is to disseminate findings in order to have an impact on clinical practice. This objective is contained within the notion of knowledge translation (KT). The Canadian Institutes for Health Research ( CIHR, 2016 ) defines KT as “a dynamic and iterative process” consisting of several steps that foster the creation, and subsequent dissemination, of knowledge for the purpose of improving the health of Canadians by strengthening healthcare services. A short list of additional terms imbued with similar purpose and meaning to KT include knowledge exchange, implementation, research utilization, diffusion, and knowledge transfer. Graham and colleagues (2006) suggested that confusion arising from multiple methodologies and theories for disseminating research findings be clarified to ensure that they are not “lost in knowledge translation” (p.13). Indeed, for both novice and experienced researchers an awkward and frustrating disconnect can exist between generated research knowledge and crucial stakeholders it was meant to inform. Unless research results are communicated with others in a way that is effective and meaningful, potentially important and practice-changing knowledge could slip into the obscurity of a file cabinet or rarely-cited manuscript.

Communication is the key to disseminating research results. Communication is commonly defined as a verbal and nonverbal means of exchanging information, but it also embodies the notion of making connections and building relationships. Therefore, learning how to effectively communicate with a variety of audiences about research is an important skill. The most familiar ways in which nurse researchers communicate research results is by publishing in the academic literature and doing conference presentations (both oral sessions and posters). These strategies do allow the sharing of research findings with specific audiences, and probably target higher level stakeholders but, ultimately, may not generate long-lasting results or improvements in clinical practice. In developing a comprehensive communication plan, researchers are being encouraged to not only be creative in how they communicate findings, but to draw on an evolving body of theory as to how knowledge actually gets taken up in practice.

Effective communication consists of both obtaining an intended outcome, as well as evoking a vivid impression. Ponterotto and Grieger (2007) suggested that improved communication of research results is associated with strong research skills, as well as the use of “thick description” in targeted writing. Indeed, acting like a marketing executive, in order to effectively communicate about research findings, the researcher needs to carefully construct a communications plan that incorporates creative means to target a variety of audiences. Variety is not only the spice of life, it also increases the opportunity for knowledge uptake and dissemination, thereby simultaneously raising the likelihood that research findings will find a way into clinical application.

Some inspired and impactful ways that researchers can communicate their research include:

• performative (or interpretive) dance
• curating exhibits at local museums or art galleries
• authoring colloquial books, magazine articles, and newsletter pieces
• hosting open-forum philosopher’s cafés (for example, the CIHR “café scientifique”)
• writing theatre-based performance pieces
• facilitating focus groups and round table discussions
• doing on-site in-services for nursing staff
• developing blogs and project-specific websites
• utilizing social media platforms like Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook
• posting mural or graphic poster projects in public spaces or business lobbies
• creating an “explainer video” to post on YouTube or organizational websites
• producing a colourful brochure or flyer highlighting key points and findings
• partnering with other researchers working on similar research questions
• regular, strategic networking with clinicians and other stakeholders.

This is just a sampling of strategies researchers can utilize to capture the attention of target audiences and disseminate findings in a way that is both resourceful and consequential. Each idea can build and strengthen relationships between the researcher, the research findings, and a greater community that may be interested in this knowledge.

While there is no ‘right’ method to communicate knowledge gleaned from research, it is possible to elevate knowledge translation strategies to maximize impact. Ask yourself, ‘what is the ultimate goal for this research?’ Is it to impact clinical practice, describe a phenomenon, or improve health outcomes? Carefully consider who the best audiences might be to understand and respond to the research findings. Is it front-line clinicians? Students? Advanced practice nurses? By naming the group (or groups) that might benefit from the findings and then marrying their community priorities and values with the overarching goals for research dissemination, the researcher can generate innovative and authentic ideas to sharpen and amplify communication strategies.

• Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Knowledge translation at CIHR. 2016. Jul 28, Retrieved from www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/29418.html .
• Graham I, Logan J, Harrison M, Straus S, Tetroe J, Caswell W, Robinson N. Lost in knowledge translation: Time for a map? The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions. 2006; 26 :13–24. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ponterotto JG, Grieger I. Effectively communicating qualitative research. The Counseling Psychologist. 2007; 35 (3):404–430. doi: 10.1177/0011000006287443. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Numismatics
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Social History
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Emotions
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music and Media
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Meta-Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Legal System - Costs and Funding
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Restitution
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Oncology
• Medical Toxicology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Cognitive Psychology
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business Ethics
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Social Issues in Business and Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic History
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Social Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Sustainability
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• Ethnic Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Politics and Law
• Politics of Development
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Qualitative Political Methodology
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Disability Studies
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter

2 Plan Your Research Communication Strategy

• Published: August 2021
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

Researchers should chart a communication strategy to maximize the benefit of their communications to their research and career. They first need to free themselves from the attitude that they should fear communicating to lay audiences because of the inherent imprecision of lay communications. Also, they should overcome the fear of communicating beyond their peers because their peers might judge them harshly. They should have a “do-tell” strategy that they communicate as much as possible about their goals and research advances. Such a strategy ensures that their work will reach audiences that they might not have expected. They should also have a “strategy of synergy,” in which they use such content as news releases to reach multiple audiences beyond the media.

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Getting Published
• Open Research
• Communicating Research
• Life in Research
• For Editors
• For Peer Reviewers
• Research Integrity

How to communicate your research more effectively

Author: guest contributor.

by Angie Voyles Askham, Content Marketing Intern

"Scientists need to excite the public about their work in part because the public is paying for it, and in part because science has very important things to say about some of the biggest problems society faces."

Stephen S. Hall has been reporting and writing about science for decades. For the past ten years, he's also been helping researchers at New York University improve their writing skills through the school's unique  Science Communication Workshops . In our interview below, he explains why the public deserves good science communication and offers some tips for how researchers can make their writing clear and engaging.

How would you descr ibe your role as a science journalist?

I’ve always made a distinction between "science writer" and a writer who happens to be interested in science. That may sound like wordplay, but I think it captures what we aspire to do. Even as specialists, science journalists wear several hats: we explain, we report, we investigate, we step back and provide historical context to scientific developments to help people understand what’s new, why something is controversial, who drove a major innovation. And like any writer, we look for interesting, provocative, and deeply reported ways to tell these stories.

I know you from the science communication workshop that’s offered to NYU graduate students. One of the most important things that I got out of the workshop, at least initially, was training myself out of the stuffy academic voice that I think a lot researchers fall into when writing academic papers. Why do you think scientists fall into this particular trap, and how do you help them get out of it?

Scientists are trained—and rightly so—to describe their work in neutral, objective terms, qualifying all observations and openly acknowledging experimental limitations. Those qualities play very well in scientific papers and talks, but are terrible for effective communication to the general public. In our Science Communication workshops at NYU, we typically see that scientists tend to communicate in dense, formal and cautious language; they tell their audiences too much; they mimic the scientific literature’s affinity for passive voice; and they slip into jargon and what I call “jargonish,” defensive language. Over ten years of conducting workshops, we’ve learned to attack these problems on two fronts: pattern recognition (training people to recognize bad writing/speaking habits and fixing them) and psychological "deprogramming" (it’s okay to leave some details and qualifications out!). And a key ingredient to successful communication is understanding your audience; there is no such thing as the "general public," but rather a bunch of different potential audiences, with different needs and different levels of expertise. We try to educate scientists to recognize the exact audience they're trying to reach—what they need to know and, just as important, what they don't need to know.

What are some other common mistakes that you see researchers making when they’re trying to communicate about their work, either with each other or with the public?

We see the same tendencies over and over again: vocabulary (not simply jargon, but common expressions—such as gene “expression”—that are second-hand within a field, but not clear to non-experts); abstract, complicated explanations rather than using everyday language; sentences that are too long; and “optics” (paragraphs that are too long and appear monolithic to readers). We’ve found that workshops are the perfect setting to play out the process of using everyday language to explain something without sacrificing scientific accuracy.

Why is it important for researchers to be better communicators?

Scientists need to learn to tell their own stories, first and foremost, because society needs their expertise, their perspective, their evidence-based problem solving skills for the future. But the lay public, especially in an era where every fact seems up for grabs, needs to be reminded of what the scientific method is: using critical thinking and rigorous analysis of facts to reach evidence-based conclusions. Scientists need to excite the public about their work in part because the public is paying for it, and in part because science has very important things to say about some of the biggest problems society faces—climate change, medical care, advanced technologies like artificial intelligence, among many other issues. As climate scientist Michael Mann said in a celebrated 2014 New York Times OpEd, scientists can no longer stay on the sidelines in these important public debates.

As a science journalist, part of your job is to hunt for interesting stories to tell. How can scientists make their work more accessible to people like you—or to other people outside of their specific area of research—so that their stories are told more widely?

The key word in your question is “stories.” Think like a writer. What’s the story behind your discovery? What were the ups and downs on the way to the finding? Where does this fit into a larger history of science narrative? Was there a funny incident or episode in the work (humor is a great way to draw and sustain public interest)? Was there a conflict or competition that makes the work even more interesting? Is there a compelling historical or contemporary figure involved that will help you humanize the science? It's been our-longstanding belief that scientists have a great intuitive feel for good storytelling (we incorporate narrative training in our workshops), but just don’t think about it when it comes to describing their own work. The other key thing is to explain why your research matters.

One of the ways that many researchers try to share their work is through Twitter, but I noticed that on the NYU website it says you’re a Twitter conscientious objector. Why is that? What effect do you think Twitter has had on science communication and journalism in general?

I actually think Twitter can be a great tool for science communication, and many of my colleagues use it deftly. I tend to gravitate toward stories that everyone is not talking about, so Twitter doesn’t help much in that regard. The larger reason I’m a Twitter “refusenik,” as my colleague Dan Fagin sometimes calls me, is that I think the technology has been widely abused to disseminate misinformation, intimidate enemies, and subvert democratic norms; I don’t use it primarily for those reasons.

Are there any other tips that you can offer researchers who want to be better communicators and just aren’t sure where to start?

One first step might be to see if your institution offers any communication training and to take advantage of those programs; if not, think about how you might establish a program. We’ve posted a few of the things we’ve learned at NYU on our website ; we’ve also established a publishing platform for science communicators at NYU called the Cooper Square Review , which is a good way for scientists to get experience publishing their own work and reaching a larger public.

Stephen S. Hall  has been reporting and writing about science for nearly 30 years. In addition to numerous cover stories in the New York Times Magazine, where he also served as a Story Editor and Contributing Writer, his work has appeared in The New Yorker, The Atlantic Monthly, and a number of other outlets. He is also the author of six non-fiction books about contemporary science. In addition to teaching the Science Communication Workshops at NYU, he also teaches for NYU's Science, Health and Environmental Reporting Program (SHERP) and has taught graduate seminars in science writing and explanatory journalism at Columbia University.

Click here to learn how Springer Nature continues to support the needs of Early Career Researchers.

Guest Contributors include Springer Nature staff and authors, industry experts, society partners, and many others. If you are interested in being a Guest Contributor, please contact us via email: [email protected] .

• early career researchers
• research communication
• Open science
• Tools & Services
• Account Development
• Sales and account contacts
• Professional
• Press office
• Locations & Contact

We are a world leading research, educational and professional publisher. Visit our main website for more information.

• © 2024 Springer Nature
• General terms and conditions
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Your Privacy Choices / Manage Cookies
• Accessibility
• Legal notice
• Help us to improve this site, send feedback.

Communication Research

Doing communication research.

Students often believe that researchers are well organized, meticulous, and academic as they pursue their research projects. The reality of research is that much of it is a hit-and-miss endeavor. Albert Einstein provided wonderful insight to the messy nature of research when he said, “If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” Because a great deal of Communication research is still exploratory, we are continually developing new and more sophisticated methods to better understand how and why we communicate. Think about all of the advances in communication technologies (snapchat, instagram, etc.) and how quickly they come and go. Communication research can barely keep up with the ongoing changes to human communication.

Researching something as complex as human communication can be an exercise in creativity, patience, and failure. Communication research, while relatively new in many respects, should follow several basic principles to be effective. Similar to other types of research, Communication research should be systematic, rational, self­-correcting, self-­reflexive, and creative to be of use (Babbie; Bronowski; Buddenbaum; Novak; Copi; Peirce; Reichenbach; Smith; Hughes & Hayhoe).

Seven Basic Steps of Research

While research can be messy, there are steps we can follow to avoid some of the pitfalls inherent with any research project. Research doesn’t always work out right, but we do use the following guidelines as a way to keep research focused, as well as detailing our methods so other can replicate them. Let’s look at seven basic steps that help us conduct effective research.

• Identify a focus of research . To conduct research, the first thing you must do is identify what aspect of human communication interests you and make that the focus of inquiry. Most Communication researchers examine things that interest them; such as communication phenomena that they have questions about and want answered. For example, you may be interested in studying conflict between romantic partners. When using a deductive approach to research, one begins by identifying a focus of research and then examining theories and previous research to begin developing and narrowing down a research question.
• Develop a research question(s) . Simply having a focus of study is still too broad to conduct research, and would ultimately end up being an endless process of trial and error. Thus, it is essential to develop very specific research questions. Using our example above, what specific things would you want to know about conflict in romantic relationships? If you simply said you wanted to study conflict in romantic relationships, you would not have a solid focus and would spend a long time conducting your research with no results. However, you could ask, “Do couples use different types of conflict management strategies when they are first dating versus after being in a relationship for a while? It is essential to develop specific questions that guide what you research. It is also important to decide if an answer to your research question already exists somewhere in the plethora of research already conducted. A review of the literature available at your local library may help you decide if others have already asked and answered a similar question. Another convenient resource will be your university’s online database. This database will most likely provide you with resources of previous research through academic journal articles, books, catalogs, and various kinds of other literature and media.
• Define key terms . Using our example, how would you define the terms conflict, romantic relationship, dating, and long­-term relationship? While these terms may seem like common sense, you would be surprised how many ways people can interpret the same terms and how particular definitions shape the research. Take the term long­-term relationship, for example, what are all of the ways this can be defined? People married for 10 or more years? People living together for five or more years? Those who identify as being monogamous? It is important to consider populations who would be included and excluded from your study based on a particular definition and the resulting generalizability of your findings. Therefore, it is important to identify and set the parameters of what it is you are researching by defining what the key terms mean to you and your research. A research project must be fully operationalized , specifically describing how variables will be observed and measured. This will allow other researchers an opportunity to repeat the process in an attempt to replicate the results. Though more importantly, it will provide additional understanding and credibility to your research.

Communication Research Then

Wilber schramm – the modern father of communication.

Although many aspects of the Communication discipline can be dated to the era of the ancient Greeks, and more specifically to individuals such as Aristotle or Plato, Communication Research really began to develop in the 20th century. James W. Tankard Jr. (1988) states in the article, Wilbur Schramm: Definer of a Field that, “Wilbur Schramm (1907-1987) probably did more to define and establish the field of Communication research and theory than any other person” (p. 1). In 1947 Wilbur Schramm went to the University of Illinois where he founded the first Institute of Communication Research. The Institute’s purpose was, “to apply the methods and disciplines of the social sciences (supported, where necessary, by the fine arts and natural sciences) to the basic problems of press, radio and pictures; to supply verifiable information in those areas of communications where the hunch, the tradition, the theory and thumb have too often ruled; and by so doing to contribute to the better understanding of communications and the maximum use of communications for the public good” (p. 2).

• Select an appropriate research methodology . A methodology is the actual step-by-step process of conducting research. There are various methodologies available for researching communication. Some tend to work better than others for examining particular types of communication phenomena. In our example, would you interview couples, give them a survey, observe them, or conduct some type of experiment? Depending on what you wish to study, you will have to pick a process, or methodology, in order to study it. We’ll discuss examples of methodologies later in this chapter.
• Establish a sample population or data set . It is important to decide who and what you want to study. One criticism of current Communication research is that it often relies on college students enrolled in Communication classes as the sample population. This is an example of convenience sampling. Charles Teddlie and Fen Yu write, “Convenience sampling involves drawing samples that are both easily accessible and willing to participate in a study” (78). One joke in our field is that we know more about college students than anyone else. In all seriousness, it is important that you pick samples that are truly representative of what and who you want to research. If you are concerned about how long-term romantic couples engage in conflict, (remember what we said about definitions) college students may not be the best sample population. Instead, college students might be a good population for examining how romantic couples engage in conflict in the early stages of dating.
• Gather and analyze data . Once you have a research focus, research question(s), key terms, a method, and a sample population, you are ready to gather the actual data that will show you what it is you want to answer in your research question(s). If you have ever filled out a survey in one of your classes, you have helped a researcher gather data to be analyzed in order to answer research questions. The actual “doing” of your methodology will allow you to collect the data you need to know about how romantic couples engage in conflict. For example, one approach to using a survey to collect data is to consider adapting a questionnaire that is already developed. Communication Research Measures II: A Sourcebook is a good resource to find valid instruments for measuring many different aspects of human communication (Rubin et al.).

Communication Research Now

Communicating climate change through creativity.

Communicating climate change has been an increasingly important topic for the past number of years. Today we hear more about the issue in the media than ever. However, “the challenge of climate change communication is thought to require systematic evidence about public attitudes, sophisticated models of behaviour change and the rigorous application of social scientific research” (Buirski). In South Africa, schools, social workers, and psychologist have found ways to change the way young people and children learn about about the issue. Through creatively, “climate change is rendered real through everyday stories, performances, and simple yet authentic ideas through children and school teachers to create a positive social norm” (Buirski). By engaging children’s minds rather than bombarding them with information, we can capture their attention (Buirski).

• Interpret and share results . Simply collecting data does not mean that your research project is complete. Remember, our research leads us to develop and refine theories so we have more sophisticated representations about how our world works. Thus, researchers must interpret the data to see if it tells us anything of significance about how we communicate. If so, we share our research findings to further the body of knowledge we have about human communication. Imagine you completed your study about conflict and romantic couples. Others who are interested in this topic would probably want to see what you discovered in order to help them in their research. Likewise, couples might want to know what you have found in order to help themselves deal with conflict better.

Although these seven steps seem pretty clear on paper, research is rarely that simple. For example, a master’s student conducted research for their Master’s thesis on issues of privacy, ownership and free speech as it relates to using email at work. The last step before obtaining their Master’s degree was to share the results with a committee of professors. The professors began debating the merits of the research findings. Two of the three professors felt that the research had not actually answered the research questions and suggested that the master’s candidate re­write their two chapters of conclusions. The third professor argued that the author HAD actually answered the research questions, and suggested that an alternative to completely re­writing two chapters would be to re­write the research questions to more accurately reflect the original intention of the study. This real example demonstrates the reality that, despite trying to account for everything by following the basic steps of research, research is always open to change and modification, even toward the end of the process.

Communication Research and You

Because we have been using the example of conflict between romantic couples, here is an example of communication in action by Thomas Bradbury, Ph.D regarding the study of conflict between romantic partners. What stands out to you? What would you do differently?

Which Conflicts Consume Couples the Most http://www.pbs.org/thisemotionallife/blogs/which-­conflicts-­consume-­couples­-most

• Survey of Communication Study. Authored by : Scott T Paynton and Linda K Hahn. Provided by : Humboldt State University. Located at : https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Survey_of_Communication_Study/Preface . License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike

Communicating Research Findings

• First Online: 03 January 2022

Cite this chapter

• Rob Davidson 5 &
• Chandra Makanjee 6  

495 Accesses

Research is a scholarship activity and a collective endeavor, and as such, its finding should be disseminated. Research findings, often called research outputs, can be disseminated in many forms including peer-reviewed journal articles (e.g., original research, case reports, and review articles) and conference presentations (oral and poster presentations). There are many other options, such as book chapters, educational materials, reports of teaching practices, curriculum description, videos, media (newspapers/radio/television), and websites. Irrespective of the approach that is chosen as the mode of communicating, all modes of communication entail some basic organizational aspects of dissemination processes that are common. These are to define research project objectives, map potential target audience(s), relay target messages, define mode of communication/engagement, and create a dissemination plan.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Transferability and Communication of Results

True Dissemination of Knowledge Doesn’t Gather Dust on a Library Shelf

Dissemination

Bavdekar, S. B., Vyas, S., & Anand, V. (2017). Creating posters for effective scientific communication. The Journal of the Association of Physicians of India, 65 (8), 82–88.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2011). Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36 (1), 12–32. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0486

Article   Google Scholar  

Gopal, A., Redman, M., Cox, D., Foreman, D., Elsey, E., & Fleming, S. (2017). Academic poster design at a national conference: A need for standardised guidance? The Clinical Teacher, 14 (5), 360–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.12584

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hoffman, T., Bennett, S., & Del Mar, C. (2017). Evidence-based practice across the health professions, ISBN: 9780729586078 . Elsevier.

Google Scholar  

Iny, D. (2012). Four proven strategies for finding a wider audience for your content . Rainmaker Digital. http://www.copyblogger.com/targeted-content-marketing . Accessed January 2021.

Mir, R., Willmott, H., & Greenwood, M. The routledge companion to philosophy in organization studies (pp. 113–124). Routledge.

Myers, M. D. (2013). Qualitative research in business & management (2nd ed.). Sage.

Myers, M. D. (2018). Writing for different audiences. In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Business and Management Research Methods (pp. 532–545). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526430212.n31

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Nikolian, V. C., & Ibrahim, A. M. (2017). What does the future hold for scientific journals? Visual abstracts and other tools for communicating research. Clinics in Colon and Rectal Surgery, 30 (4), 252–258. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1604253

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ranse, J., & Hayes, C. (2009). A novice’s guide to preparing and presenting an oral presentation at a scientific conference. Australasian Journal of Paramedicine, 7 (1). https://doi.org/10.33151/ajp.7.1.151

Rowe, N., & Ilic, D. (2015). Rethinking poster presentations at large-scale scientific meetings—Is it time for the format to evolve? FEBS Journal, 282 , 3661–3668

Richardson, L., & St. Pierre, E. A. (2005). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 959–978). Sage.

Tress, G., Tress, B., & Saunders, D. A. (2014). How to write a paper for successful publication in an international peer-reviewed journal. Pacific Conservation Biology, 20 (1), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1071/PC140017

Verde Arregoitia, L. D., & González-Suárez, M. (2019). From conference abstract to publication in the conservation science literature. Conservation Biology, 33 (5), 1164–1173. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13296

Wellstead, G., Whitehurst, K., Gundogan, B., & Agha, R. (2017). How to deliver an oral presentation. International Journal of Surgery Oncology, 2 (6), e25. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJ9.0000000000000025

Woolston, C. (2016). Conference presentations: Lead the poster parade. Nature, 536 (7614), 115–117

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Health Science, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia

Rob Davidson

Discipline of Medical Radiation Science, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia

Chandra Makanjee

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chandra Makanjee .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Medical Imaging, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Burnaby, BC, Canada

Euclid Seeram

Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Canberra, ACT, Australia

Robert Davidson

Brookfield Health Sciences, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

Andrew England

Mark F. McEntee

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Davidson, R., Makanjee, C. (2021). Communicating Research Findings. In: Seeram, E., Davidson, R., England, A., McEntee, M.F. (eds) Research for Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79956-4_7

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79956-4_7

Published : 03 January 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-79955-7

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-79956-4

eBook Packages : Biomedical and Life Sciences Biomedical and Life Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Create a new account.

Can't sign in? Forgot your password?

Enter your email address below and we will send you the reset instructions

If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to reset your password

Request Username

Can't sign in? Forgot your username?

Enter your email address below and we will send you your username

If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to retrieve your username

Change Password

Your password must have 8 characters or more and contain 3 of the following:.

• a lower case character, 
• an upper case character, 
• a special character 

Password Changed Successfully

Your password has been changed

Verify Phone

Your Phone has been verified

• This journal
• This Journal
• sample issues
• publication fees
• latest issues

Considerations for effective science communication

Information & authors, metrics & citations, view options.

Considerations

1. define what science communication means to you and your research, 2. know—and listen to—your target audience, 3. consider a diverse but coordinated communication portfolio, 4. draft skilled players and build a network, 5. create and seize opportunities, 6. be creative when you communicate, 7. focus on the science in science communication, 8. be an honest broker, 9. understand the science of science communication, 10. think like an entrepreneur, 11. don’t let your colleagues stop you, 12. integrate science communication into your research program, 13. recognize how science communication enhances your science, 14. request science communication funds from grants, 15. strive for bidirectional communication, 16. evaluate, reflect, and be prepared to adapt, acknowledgements, information, published in.

Data Availability Statement

• science engagement
• science outreach
• communication science
• evaluation of science communication
• academic cultures
• professional development
• Integrative Sciences
• Science Communication

Affiliations

Author contributions, competing interests, other metrics, export citations.

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

• Karen J. Murchie ,
• Dylan Diomede , and
• Marie-Claire Shanahan
• Natalie M. Sopinka ,
• Laura E. Coristine ,
• Maria C. DeRosa ,
• Chelsea M. Rochman ,
• Brian L. Owens ,
• Steven J. Cooke , and
• Stephen B. Heard
• Jonathan W. Moore ,
• Linda Nowlan ,
• Martin Olszynski ,
• Aerin L. Jacob ,
• Brett Favaro ,
• Lynda Collins ,
• G.L. Terri-Lynn Williams-Davidson ,
• Jill Weitz , and

View options

Share options, share the article link.

Copying failed.

Share on social media

Previous article, next article.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Feature Article
• Published: 18 August 2004

Communications with research participants and communities: foundations for best practices

• Rebecca T Parkin 1  

Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology volume  14 ,  pages 516–523 ( 2004 ) Cite this article

3108 Accesses

11 Citations

4 Altmetric

Metrics details

Communities and research participants increasingly feel that they have rights to be equal partners with researchers and to have access to the results of studies to which they have contributed. Concurrently, research sponsors have become aware of legal liabilities, societal repercussions, and credibility impacts of ignoring research communication responsibilities. However, issues related to research communications are rarely discussed at professional meetings or taught in academic programs. As a result, individual investigators may not be clear about their duties to communicate the results of their research. It is important to address this gap between expectations and abilities, because researchers' lack of communication fosters a climate of distrust in science and implies disinterest or disrespect for participants and communities. Ethical, legal, and professional frameworks and practices were reviewed to develop insights about principles, guidelines, and means that can be used to promote best practices. A review of general research guidance and specific requests for proposals revealed sponsors' communication priorities. While there are barriers to research communication, there is an increasing awareness among sponsors and investigators that effective and responsive communication is not a cheap or uniform add-on to a project or proposal. Communications must be tailored to the project considering all potential stakeholders, and resources need to be allocated specifically for communication activities within projects. Researchers, sponsors, professional societies and academia all have opportunities to improve principles, policies, frameworks, guidelines and strategies to foster “best practice” communication of research results.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 6 print issues and online access

251,40 € per year

only 41,90 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on SpringerLink
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

American College of Epidemiologists (ACE). Ethics Guidelines. Available at http://www.acepidemiology.org/policystmts/EthicsGuide.htm , 2000.

American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA). Code of Professional Ethics for Industrial Hygienists. Available at http://www.aiha.org/Committees/html/Ethics/jiheec-code.htm , 2002.

American Public Health Association (APHA). Public Health Code of Ethics. Available at http://www.apha.org/codeofethics/ethics.htm , 2002.

Brodkin C.A., et al. Choosing a professional code for ethical conduct in occupational and environmental medicine. J Occup Environ Med 1998: 40 (10): 840–842.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Callahan D., and Jennings B. Ethics and public health: Forging a strong relationship. Amer J Public Health 2002: 92 (2): 169–176.

Article   Google Scholar  

Goldin R.A., (Ed.). Codes of Professional Responsibility , 3rd edn. The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Washington, DC, 1994.

Google Scholar  

Health Canada. Health Policy Research Program (HPRP) Research Funding. Available at http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca , 2002.

International Commission on Occupational Health (ICOH). Occupational health code of ethics. Bull Med Eth 1992: 82 : 7–11.

Israel B., et al. Critical issues in developing and following community based participatory research principles. In: Minkler M, and Wallenstein N. (Eds.). Community-Based Participatory Research for Health . Jossey-Bass, John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco, 2003, pp. 53–76.

Jensen J.V. Ethical Issues in the Communication Process . Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, NJ, 1997.

Johannesen R.L. Ethics in Human Communications , 4th edn. Waveland Press, Inc., Prospect Heights, IL, 1996.

Kultgen J. The ideological use of professional codes. In: Stichler R.N., and Hauptman R. (Eds.). Ethics, Information and Technology: Readings . McFarland & Company Inc., Publishers, Jefferson, NC, 1998, pp. 273–290.

Langford I.H. An existential approach to risk perception. Risk Anal 2002: 22 (1): 101–120.

Minkler M., and Wallenstein N., (Eds.). Community-Based Participatory Research for Health . Jossey-Bass, John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco, 2003.

National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and Consumer's Health Forum of Australia (CHFA). Statement on Consumer and Community Participation in Health and Medical Research. Available at http://www.health.gov.au/nhmrc/publications/synopses/r22syn.htm , 2002.

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). In: O'Fallon L.R., Tyson F.L., and Dearry A. (Eds.). Successful Models of Community-Based Participatory Research. Final Report. Available at http://www.niehs.nih.gov/translat/cbr-final.pdf , 2000.

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. Available at http://www.ncehr-cnerh.org/english/code_2.htm , 2002.

Newton L. The origin of professionalism: sociological conclusions and ethical implications. In: Stichler R.N., and Hauptman R. (Eds.). Ethics, Information and Technology: Readings . McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, Jefferson, NC, 1998, pp. 261–272.

O'Fallon L.R., and Dearry A. Community-based participatory research as a tool to advance environmental health sciences. Environ Health Perspect 2002: 110 (Suppl. 2): 155–159.

Pontifical Council for Social Communications (PSCS). Ethics in Communications. Available at http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/pccs/documents/rc_pc_pccs_doc_20000530_ethics-communications_en.html , 2002.

Powell D., and Leiss W. Mad Cows and Mother's Milk: The Perils of Poor Risk Communication . McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal, 1997.

Schulte P. Interpretation and communication of data. In: Schulte P.A., and Perera F.P. (Eds.). Molecular Epidemiology: Principles and Practices . Academic, Press San Diego, 1993.

Strossen N. Academic and artistic freedom. In: Stichler R.N., and Hauptman R. (Eds.). Ethics, Information and Technology: Readings . McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, Jefferson, NC, 1998, pp. 45–63.

Sullivan M., et al. Researcher and researched-community perspectives: toward bridging the gap. Health Educ Behav 2001: 28 (2): 130–149.

Swan J.C. Untruth or consequences?. In: Stichler R.N., and Hauptman R. (Eds.). Ethics, Information and Technology: Readings . McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, Jefferson, NC, 1998, pp. 64–75.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I gratefully acknowledge the support provided by the Mickey Leland National Urban Air Toxics Research Center for the preparation of the related August 2002 ISEA-ISEE meeting presentation and this manuscript. I also acknowledge Dr. Tee Guidotti of The George Washington University and the peer-reviewers for their insights that contributed to the final article. I especially thank two staff members of the University's Center for Risk Science and Public Health — Elizabeth Shinkman, who conducted major portions of the literature search and Lisa Ragain, who conducted most of the Internet searches.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA

Rebecca T Parkin

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rebecca T Parkin .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Parkin, R. Communications with research participants and communities: foundations for best practices. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 14 , 516–523 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jea.7500393

Download citation

Received : 25 March 2003

Accepted : 18 February 2004

Published : 18 August 2004

Issue Date : 01 November 2004

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jea.7500393

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• professional duties
• community-based participatory research
• research ethics
• communication
• research participants .

This article is cited by

Community engagement in urban health research.

• Alan R. Fleischman

Journal of Urban Health (2007)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Communicating Research Findings

• January 2016

• Monash University (Australia)

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• RES DEV DISABIL

• Robert L. Schalock

• J Educ Change
• Elizabeth Farley-Ripple
• Stephen MacGregor
• Joshua Pigeon

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

• Our Program Divisions
• Our Three Academies
• Government Affairs
• Statement on Diversity and Inclusion
• Our Study Process
• Conflict of Interest Policies and Procedures
• Project Comments and Information
• Read Our Expert Reports and Published Proceedings
• Explore PNAS, the Flagship Scientific Journal of NAS
• Access Transportation Research Board Publications
• Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
• Economic Recovery
• Fellowships and Grants
• Publications by Division
• Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
• Division on Earth and Life Studies
• Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
• Gulf Research Program
• Health and Medicine Division
• Policy and Global Affairs Division
• Transportation Research Board
• National Academy of Sciences
• National Academy of Engineering
• National Academy of Medicine
• Publications by Topic
• Agriculture
• Behavioral and Social Sciences
• Biography and Autobiography
• Biology and Life Sciences
• Computers and Information Technology
• Conflict and Security Issues
• Earth Sciences
• Energy and Energy Conservation
• Engineering and Technology
• Environment and Environmental Studies
• Food and Nutrition
• Health and Medicine
• Industry and Labor
• Math, Chemistry, and Physics
• Policy for Science and Technology
• Space and Aeronautics
• Surveys and Statistics
• Transportation and Infrastructure
• Searchable Collections
• New Releases

VIEW LARGER COVER

Communicating Science Effectively

A research agenda.

Science and technology are embedded in virtually every aspect of modern life. As a result, people face an increasing need to integrate information from science with their personal values and other considerations as they make important life decisions about medical care, the safety of foods, what to do about climate change, and many other issues. Communicating science effectively, however, is a complex task and an acquired skill. Moreover, the approaches to communicating science that will be most effective for specific audiences and circumstances are not obvious. Fortunately, there is an expanding science base from diverse disciplines that can support science communicators in making these determinations.

Communicating Science Effectively offers a research agenda for science communicators and researchers seeking to apply this research and fill gaps in knowledge about how to communicate effectively about science, focusing in particular on issues that are contentious in the public sphere. To inform this research agenda, this publication identifies important influences – psychological, economic, political, social, cultural, and media-related – on how science related to such issues is understood, perceived, and used.

RESOURCES AT A GLANCE

• Press Release
• Report Brief
• Webinar: Public Discussion
• Presentation Slides from Launch Event
• Policy for Science and Technology — Research and Data

Suggested Citation

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/23674. Import this citation to: Bibtex EndNote Reference Manager

Publication Info

• Paperback:  978-0-309-45102-4
• Ebook:  978-0-309-45105-5

What is skim?

The Chapter Skim search tool presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter. You may select key terms to highlight them within pages of each chapter.

• Webinar: Public Discussion Read Description: Public release briefing was held on January 10, 2017.

Copyright Information

The National Academies Press (NAP) has partnered with Copyright Clearance Center's Marketplace service to offer you a variety of options for reusing NAP content. Through Marketplace, you may request permission to reprint NAP content in another publication, course pack, secure website, or other media. Marketplace allows you to instantly obtain permission, pay related fees, and print a license directly from the NAP website. The complete terms and conditions of your reuse license can be found in the license agreement that will be made available to you during the online order process. To request permission through Marketplace you are required to create an account by filling out a simple online form. The following list describes license reuses offered by the NAP through Marketplace:

• Republish text, tables, figures, or images in print
• Post on a secure Intranet/Extranet website
• Use in a PowerPoint Presentation
• Distribute via CD-ROM

Click here to obtain permission for the above reuses. If you have questions or comments concerning the Marketplace service, please contact:

Marketplace Support International +1.978.646.2600 US Toll Free +1.855.239.3415 E-mail: [email protected] marketplace.copyright.com

To request permission to distribute a PDF, please contact our Customer Service Department at [email protected] .

What is a prepublication?

An uncorrected copy, or prepublication, is an uncorrected proof of the book. We publish prepublications to facilitate timely access to the committee's findings.

What happens when I pre-order?

The final version of this book has not been published yet. You can pre-order a copy of the book and we will send it to you when it becomes available. We will not charge you for the book until it ships. Pricing for a pre-ordered book is estimated and subject to change. All backorders will be released at the final established price. As a courtesy, if the price increases by more than $3.00 we will notify you. If the price decreases, we will simply charge the lower price. Applicable discounts will be extended.

Downloading and Using eBooks from NAP

What is an ebook.

An ebook is one of two file formats that are intended to be used with e-reader devices and apps such as Amazon Kindle or Apple iBooks.

Why is an eBook better than a PDF?

A PDF is a digital representation of the print book, so while it can be loaded into most e-reader programs, it doesn't allow for resizable text or advanced, interactive functionality. The eBook is optimized for e-reader devices and apps, which means that it offers a much better digital reading experience than a PDF, including resizable text and interactive features (when available).

Where do I get eBook files?

eBook files are now available for a large number of reports on the NAP.edu website. If an eBook is available, you'll see the option to purchase it on the book page.

View more FAQ's about Ebooks

Types of Publications

Consensus Study Report: Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.

The internal website for staff at Lund University

The browser you are using is not supported by this website. All versions of Internet Explorer are no longer supported, either by us or Microsoft (read more here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/windows/end-of-ie-support ).

Please use a modern browser to fully experience our website, such as the newest versions of Edge, Chrome, Firefox or Safari etc.

Principles for research communication

As a researcher or communications officer, when you are to convey information about research via the media, social media, events or in other public contexts, you should strive to observe the seven principles below.

Why are guidelines needed?

As a university, our mission includes external engagement and providing information about our activities and working for our research findings to be utilised. It is in the interests of the researchers, the University and society   that findings and insights on the methodology and limitations of research are made accessible for public debate, political decisions, the business community and society as a whole.

Seven principles for good public research communication 

1. correctness.

When research is communicated, the content must be correct and give the target group a correct understanding of the relevant facts about both the results and the research involved. 

2. Relevance

What is relevant for the recipient to know? Bear in mind that the information conveyed is to be relevant for the recipient’s understanding of the research results. Provide relevant information about facts and data to ensure that content and conclusions cannot be misinterpreted or overinterpreted. Avoid communicating alarming messages unnecessarily.

3. Uncertainty

Is there any uncertainty? Clarify the uncertainties that relate to the research. Scientific discoveries are associated with varying uncertainty factors depending on method, research design, data or theoretical suppositions. Be clear about any limitations/weaknesses/uncertainties relating to the results and their interpretation.

4. Scientific status

What is the scientific status of the research? Explain the status of the research in question. Is there broad support for the results among researchers, or do the results deviate from the general consensus within the field of research? Have the findings been published and reviewed in research publications or are they preliminary results, hypotheses etc.?

5. Authorship

Who is the author? Researchers often communicate information that stems for other parts of the research world – i.e. information that they have not produced themselves. Conveying this information to society plays an important role in research communication, but it should be stated in the communication whether it derives from the researcher’s own research or someone else’s. 

6. Perspective

Research, other knowledge or point of view? Researchers often participate in public debate. It should be clear if the topic under discussion falls within the researcher’s own area of expertise or if it is based on other knowledge or a point of view that the researcher has. 

7. Transparency

State any vested interests! Be open about funding of the research as well as possible company interests and collaboration partners.

Notes to the principles

The seven principles should be seen as a benchmark for good research communication at the University, both for researchers and communications officers. The principles must be understood and applied in accordance with the traditions of the various fields of research and adapted to the different formats research communication may have.

Research communication is often disseminated via the media and social media, channels in which researchers or communications officers do not always have the possibility to steer the content of the communication all the way to the reader/viewer/listener. Even so, it is important that the University and researchers do their best to uphold the principles as far as possible when they communicate about research.

The principles act as both guidelines for the University’s own work and as a basis for a dialogue with the media, politicians and the public when research is to be presented to the world.

The guidelines do not limit the rights of staff to use their constitutionally protected freedom of expression or the right to submit information for publication in the media (freedom to communicate information). These freedoms and rights are regulated in the Freedom of the Press Act and the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression.

The principles are based on the Danish universities’ agreements on research communication, which in turn are based on the European universities’ cooperation organisation ALLEA’s rules on good research practice.

• Read about the Danish universities’ common principles for good research communication at dkuni.dk (in Danish)
• Download a PDF of The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity from the European universities cooperation organisation ALLEA (in Swedish)
• Download the report Good Research Practice from the Swedish Research Council website  

  The principles are supported by the Lund University Research Board and Ethics Council as well as the University’s vice-chancellor and deans.

For press support, please contact the press officers at your faculty:

Press office and faculty press contacts on lunduniversity.lu.se

If you are not employed by a faculty or if you have general questions about press, news and content, please contact the press and channel managers at Corporate Communications:

nyhetsredaktion [at] kommunikation [dot] lu [dot] se

Press and news

Read about press and news and the support that is available

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Public communication by research institutes compared across countries and sciences: Building capacity for engagement or competing for visibility?

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), Lisbon, Portugal, Department of Psychological and Behavioural Science, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, England, United Kingdom

Roles Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Psychological and Behavioural Science, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, England, United Kingdom

Roles Investigation, Methodology

Affiliation University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America

Roles Investigation, Project administration

Affiliation Department of Social Sciences, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany

Affiliation National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies, Tokyo, Japan

Affiliation Observa Science & Society, Vicenza, Italy

Affiliation Department of Advertising and Public Relations, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States of America

Affiliation Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, FIOCRUZ, Casa de Oswaldo Cruz, Instituto Nacional de Comunicação Publica da Ciência e Tecnologia, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Affiliation Department of Science Communication & Society, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

Roles Investigation

Affiliation Stan Richards School of Advertising and Public Relations, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, United States of America

Affiliation Department of Sociology, Università di Trento, Trento, Italy

Roles Data curation

Affiliation Faculty of Education, Shiga University, Otsu Shiga, Japan

Affiliation Department of Political and Social Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

Roles Formal analysis

Affiliation Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey

Roles Resources

•  [ ... ],

Affiliation National Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

• [ view all ]
• [ view less ]
• Marta Entradas, 
• Martin W. Bauer, 
• Colm O'Muircheartaigh, 
• Frank Marcinkowski, 
• Asako Okamura, 
• Giuseppe Pellegrini, 
• John Besley, 
• Luisa Massarani, 
• Pedro Russo, 

• Published: July 8, 2020
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235191
• Reader Comments

20 Nov 2020: Entradas M, Bauer MW, O'Muircheartaigh C, Marcinkowski F, Okamura A, et al. (2020) Correction: Public communication by research institutes compared across countries and sciences: Building capacity for engagement or competing for visibility?. PLOS ONE 15(11): e0242950. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242950 View correction

Leading academic institutions, governments, and funders of research across the world have spent the last few decades fretting publicly about the need for scientists and research organisations to engage more widely with the public and be open about their research. While a global literature asserts that public communication has changed from a virtue to a duty for scientists in many countries and disciplines, our knowledge about what research institutions are doing and what factors drive their ‘going public’ is very limited. Here we present the first cross-national study of N = 2,030 research institutes within universities and large scientific organisations in Brazil, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. We find that institutes embrace communication with non-peers and do so through a variety of public events and traditional news media–less so through new media channels–and we find variation across countries and sciences, yet these are less evident than we expected. Country and disciplinary cultures contribute to the level of this communication, as do the resources that institutes make available for the effort; institutes with professionalised staff show higher activity online. Future research should examine whether a real change in the organisational culture is happening or whether this activity and resource allocation is merely a means to increase institutional visibility.

Citation: Entradas M, Bauer MW, O'Muircheartaigh C, Marcinkowski F, Okamura A, Pellegrini G, et al. (2020) Public communication by research institutes compared across countries and sciences: Building capacity for engagement or competing for visibility? PLoS ONE 15(7): e0235191. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235191

Editor: J. Alberto Conejero, IUMPA - Universitat Politecnica de Valencia, SPAIN

Received: November 8, 2019; Accepted: June 11, 2020; Published: July 8, 2020

Copyright: © 2020 Entradas et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: Dataset has been uploaded to the ICPSR repository, and is available here: https://www.openicpsr.org/openicpsr/project/119361/version/V1/view/ .

Funding: M.E. received the project grant from the Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia (FCT), Grant agreement: PTDC/IVCCOM/0290/2014. Website: https://www.fct.pt/index.phtml.pt The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

In recent decades, we have witnessed a growing tendency within academic and research organisations to open doors and turn to the broader public [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ]. Institutions have extended their audiences to include students, funders of research, journalists, NGOs, business and industry, and various segments of the public, even counter publics [ 4 ], and have increased the panoply of formats of communication activities directed to these groups [ 1 ].

This change towards broader public communication is not entirely new–indeed outreach and community engagement have been the ‘third mission’ of most universities around the world [ 5 ]. Yet, it is likely that this revival has assumed salience for different purposes: with developments in academic research assessments, funded research is required to facilitate ‘pathways to impact’ on society [ 6 ] [ 7 ]. This has brought pressure on institutions to open up to public communications, and to compete for public visibility [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ], which is likely to have consequences for the societal conversation around science. Hitherto, the empirical research on this communication activity of research organisations has been scattered and not on a comparable basis.

The few systematic studies that have shed light onto organisational public communication focused on the functions of central PR offices of universities [ 3 ] [ 11 ] [ 12 ] [ 13 ] and large European research organisations [ 14 ] for media science communication. These studies point to a growing orientation on the part of organisations towards the media and journalists to build a reputation and image through self-promoting scientific findings and scientists. For example, Marcinkowski & Kohring (2014) [ 3 ] found that the central communications offices in German universities tend to instrumentalise the vanity of many scientists who like to be in the media, to build institutional reputation in the public sphere rather than scientists’ career interests. At this central level, communication about research findings acquires a special selectivity: research that serves news values well (surprise, large numbers, crises and catastrophes, conflict, human interest, etc.) has a better chance of being communicated than research that contributes to enlightening society [ 8 ]. From these findings it seems evident that at the central communications level, communication of science serves the goals of public visibility rather than public engagement.

We know less about public communication at other levels of the scientific organisation. For example, little is known about the decentralised communication structures and functions at the level of research centres, institutes, research units (under various names across national research systems), that are more likely to be in a position to communicate about their area of study–what for a better term, we call the meso-level of research institutes [ 15 ]. This level of investigation contrasts with studies of the central communication offices of universities, and the individual-scientist-level. The lack of research focused on this level is surprising given the role of research institutes in building science-society relations. Not only they are the places where scientific knowledge is produced, but they also have a privileged position in accessing publics and influencing public debate.

Despite this, there have been preliminary attempts to measure communication activities of research institutes in Portuguese universities and research organisations [ 1 ]. This study reports emerging capacity building measures for public communication of the institutes’ research activities, with public events and media interactions led independently from the central university PR offices and locally resourced [ 1 ] [ 15 ]. This work has however been recorded at the national level. Little is known about how the activity compares across institutes in different countries, with distinct traditions of public engagement in science [ 16 ] [ 17 ], scientific systems, and R&D resources [ 18 ], that allows for a broader understanding of this capacity building in contexts of internationally increasing public engagement demands [ 19 ] [ 20 ] [ 6 ].

In 2018, we conducted a systematic multi-country study of research institutes with a twofold goal: to comparatively assess public communication across countries and areas of research, and to examine the factors that explain public communication activity. We investigated a stratified sample of N = 2,030 institutes in Brazil, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America, covering the categories of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) including the Natural Sciences, the Engineering and Technology, the Medical and Health Sciences, Agriculture, the Social Sciences and the Humanities [ 21 ].

We test the hypotheses that public communication by research institutes varies across countries and sciences, and that the context in which the research institute is embedded and the institute’s commitment to communication are further conditions for such activity. We build our analytic framework on models of public communication of individual scientists, and preliminary findings on institutional drivers of communication. This research has pointed to disciplinary cultures in science communication, both in terms of the intensity and the choices of formats of engagement. Natural sciences have often been found to be less active than social sciences [ 22 ] [ 23 ] [ 24 ]–astronomy [ 25 ], and climate science [ 26 ] may be exceptions. Natural sciences engage more in educational activities for schools and the wider public; social sciences tend to be more active in civic-related activities [ 1 ]. Yet, the question relating to how science communication varies across countries and global regions has received very little attention. The handful of cross-country comparisons point to some country variation in science communication [ 27 ] [ 16 ] [ 28 ] [ 25 ], but these variations are small among scientists. More recent research shows that this activity associates with the organisational contexts in which scientists work: our global survey of astronomers (N = 2,600) showed that those scientists working with more resources from their institutions were also more active communicators, regardless of the global region in which they worked [ 25 ].

With limited comparative data on the organisational side, it is not our goal here to frame working hypotheses as to which countries or disciplines have higher activity. Our goal is to offer first empirical observations as a baseline study on cultures of science communication across countries and disciplines at the level of research institutes, to define key concepts and to operationalise key indicators of public communication of research institutes. Exploring differences and similarities across countries and fields will allow for future research and discussion aimed at understanding any patterns found by the current study.

In our analyses, we distinguish between three different formats of communication–public events-making (public events hereafter), traditional news media access (traditional media), and the use of new media channels (new media); they differ in nature and require different resources, which may influence the choices of communication that are adopted by organisations. That is, we would expect variation in the use of these formats, and this variation to be associated with the mobilisation of resources within the institution. These distinctions allow for a better understanding of the portfolio of formats and the outcomes that can be achieved.

Against this backdrop, our conceptual framework examines public communication as a function of the general organisational context and organisations’ dispositions to communicate publicly. That is, the level of public communication activity of an institute (P) can be explained by the combination of the general context of the organisation (C factors) and disposition factors that characterise the specific orientation towards communication activities (D factors) (P = f (C, D). C factors reflect the features of the institution and research environment, such as the country and scientific discipline, and the size of their annual research budget–factors known to influence communications [ 1 ]. D factors reflect the commitment and responsibility at the level of institutes that encourages public communication and supports the development of such activities; it is operationalised by the available funding for communications (research budget), guidance by communication policies (policy), recruitment of professional communications staff (staffing), and the degree to which research scientists are involved (active researchers). We know that researchers engage in public communication, but we do not know their contribution to the overall communication effort of a research institute. Similarly, explicit policies that encourage science-society relations have been adopted in many countries and institutions, and the impact of policy on practices of public communication in a country has been debated [ 29 ]. Here we test whether such communication policies are in place on the ground of research institutes and the impact they might have in the level of activity.

This framework builds on a model that we previously used to understand individual scientists’ communication activity [ 26 ] derived from Lewin’s field-theory model of behaviour [ 30 ]. It considers behaviour to be situated by factors both internal (dispositions) and external (context) to the unit of analysis. We build on this idea and extend the model to research institutes–our unit of analysis–considering their context and their commitment to public engagement as two sets of factors affecting public communication. This framework combines factors often correlated with public communication: sociological indicators of context, and social-psychological indicators of commitment. Our framework helps to understand these relationships by comparing the effects of these two sets of factors and investigating how they behave when together in the same models. That is, how much of the variation in the level of public communication of an institute is derived from country or discipline cultures, and how much from factors inherent to the research organisation. For example, while we expect resources to play an important role, it is also possible that institutes with higher levels of resources may not show a higher level of communication activity because other factors play a stronger role. Importantly, it helps to distinguish these two sets of conditions of public communication and will offer insights into the portfolio choices of institutes in their communication. In this study, we used the term ‘public communication’–adapted to the various national contexts–to refer broadly to any type of communications activities with external audiences.

Methods and data

Procedure and sample design.

An online survey was distributed to research institutes in the surveyed countries between June 2017 and May 2018. Data was centrally collected by the principal investigator (PI) with a questionnaire implemented on Qualtrics software translated into local languages. In Portugal data had been collected earlier in 2015 as a pilot study. Institutional culture shifts are unlikely to happen in short periods of time, we therefore assume data comparability is preserved.

Two weeks before the questionnaires were distributed, respondents were pre-notified by email about the study and asked for collaboration. This first contact also served to refine the samples. We asked institutes to confirm that they were a research-active institute. For each institute we targeted one respondent, addressed by name and title, and name of the institute; this was the person most likely in a position to assess the communication efforts of the institute, either a responsible for communications tasks or the director/head of the institute. We could not control for the respondents’ role as many of these institutes are small and do not have a communications person [ 1 ]; in those cases we addressed the directors. In our study, 41% of respondents were Directors/Heads/Coordinators, 17% were management/administrative staff, 13% were communications staff, and 22% were researchers; 18% of the questionnaires were answered by two or more people in collaboration. All respondents reported to be highly involved in the institute’s communications activities and values.

We used Entradas and Bauer’s (2017) measurement instrument for comparability, with questions on practices, rationales, resources for public communications, and stereotypical perceptions of the public. Here we report data on communication practices and their resourcing. The questionnaire was developed in English and translated into German, Italian, Japanese, and Brazilian Portuguese, and back translated into English [ 31 ] for quality control. Questionnaires were piloted among communications staff in all countries and final adjustments were made, whenever needed. One questionnaire was collected per institute. Questionnaires complete to less than 70% were discarded.

Mixed methods to boost response rates.

A number of modes were used to collect data. Given the intensifying challenge of obtaining responses to surveys, this is now standard practice in survey methodology [e.g. [ 32 ]]. There is strong evidence that the between-mode differences are slight compared to the potential bias of lower response rates (RRs).

An average of three reminders to the web surveys were sent per country. National teams made additional efforts, according to the resources available. In Portugal, Italy, the UK, and Netherlands, non-respondents were contacted by telephone and encouraged to participate. This resulted in an increase between 10% - 20% in the total RR. In the UK and the USA, a mail survey was conducted with a subsample of non-respondents (N = 150) (see S1 Table ). The questionnaire was mailed together with an addressed envelope to return the papers, and reminder postcards were mailed two weeks later. This method resulted in a further increase of 10% in the total RR in both countries.

Sample design

We built sampling frames of research institutes from official lists from governments and/or funding bodies when they were available (Netherlands, Portugal, Italy), and from universities’ websites in countries where lists of research institutes were not available (the UK, the USA, Japan, and Brazil). Entire populations of institutes were included in countries with smaller number of institutes as in the Netherlands, Italy, Portugal and Japan. In the countries where mapping was not complete (UK, USA, Brazil, and Germany) we built sampling frames from a structured set of universities and mapped all research institutes within them. Each institute listed was classified according to OECD scientific areas [ 21 ] our primary stratification variable. We used disproportionate stratified probability sampling to generate representative samples of the institute populations, accounting for areas of research. For the population of research institutes as defined in each country’s plan, every research institute was included in the sampling frame for the country and had a known non-zero probability of selection. Within each stratum (scientific area) an independent sample of research institutes was selected. We aimed at an N = 200 institutes per stratum–agreed by the investigator team as a group–resulting in a total sample of around N = 1,200, except for countries where populations had less cases. A sample of size 200 would, ceteris paribus , produce an estimate of a proportion (percentage) with a standard error less than or equal to + or—0.036 (3.6%) and a confidence interval of + or—0.07 (7%). This would provide a satisfactory basis for inclusion of a country’s results in the analysis.

Disproportionate stratified sampling was preferred to ensure that an adequate number of sampled research institutes was included from each of the strata (scientific areas). Using proportionate stratification (same sampling fraction in each stratum) would lead to inadequate numbers for analysis in scientific areas with smaller numbers of institutes, and make analysis by scientific area less precise. In generating population estimates, the differences in sampling fraction are taken into account in the estimation through appropriate weighting. S1 Table describes in detail the country sampling procedures.

N = 8033 was the total number of research institutes approached overall. S2 Table presents the distribution across countries and scientific areas, and RRs. A total of N = 2,030 institutes responded in our survey. The overall weighted response rate (WRR) was 25%. Weights were calculated for each unit to compensate for differential probabilities of selection and response rates among stratum [ 33 ]. We report both weighted and unweighted RR because probabilities of selection are not equal for all elements, thus both rates should be presented. While this rate may seem low, this level is expected for on-line web surveys [ 34 ] , [ 35 ], which hardly reach 25% without massive reinforcement and reminding. Similarly, for industry unit level surveys of universities, academies and corporate business units, 25% is a very realistic and good response rate.

The final samples are unbiased across research areas; there were no significant differences in the institutions contacted (target samples) and institutions that responded (samples) per country and (χ2 p > .05) (see S1 Text ).

Dependent variables

Our three dependent variables measured the level of public communication activity: “public event making”, “traditional news media”, and “new media channels”. We asked respondents to report estimated frequencies of activities in the past 12 months prior to the survey. Activities were measured on an ordinal scale: Never (none); Annually (once a year), Quarterly (2–6 times a year), Monthly (7–20 times a year), Weekly, ‘Don’t know’. For new media channels with a shorter natural cycle of activities, we added the option ‘Daily’ and dropped the option ‘Once a year’. “Public event making” (9 items) included public lectures, public exhibitions, open days, science festivals/fairs, science cafés/debates, policy-making events, workshops with private organisations, talks at schools, and citizen science projects; “Traditional news media” (13 items) included interviews for newspapers, interviews for the radio, interviews for the TV, other TV, press conferences, press releases, newsletters, brochures/non-academic publications, articles in magazines, multimedia, popular books, policy briefs, materials for schools; “New media” (6 items) included website (updates), blogs, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and Podcasts.

Indices of public communication activity.

We built two types of indicators of intensity of public communication activity for the purpose of analysis:

• Indices from estimated number of activities. Construction of these indices was based on the frequency of engagement reported by institutes and derived by recoding variables in the number of participations. Scales were re-coded to median frequency estimates as follows: never (0), annually (1), quarterly (4), monthly (12), weekly (48; referring to the number of work weeks per year) and daily (240; for 48 work weeks per year). Reliability analysis shows high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .70 for public events, .85 for traditional news media and .71 for new media) ( S3 Table ).
• Indices from factor scores. We used categorical confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to build indices of intensity for events, channels and new media. These three dimensions were identified in a preliminary study (1), and here we confirm these with robust data form various countries. ( S4 Table ).

Given the skewedness of the data, we recoded each event and traditional channel into ‘never’ (0), ‘once a year’ (1), and ‘more than once a year’ (2); and ‘no’ (0) and ‘yes’ (1) referring to use/no use of new media. The CFA resulted in a scale structure with a strong internal consistency with items loading appropriately for public events, traditional channels and social media. The model fitted reasonably well, but we refined the scales by taking out items with loadings below 0.30 (policy-making events, workshops with private organisations, newsletters, brochures/non-academic publications, multimedia, website) (standardised loadings ranged from 0.152 to 0.482). Model fits for the refined model are χ2 = 627.54, CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.04, TLI = 0.95, BIC = 56474.49, df = 142, p<0.001) ( S4 Table ). Higher scores indicate higher levels of activity.

Independent variables

C variables: the organisational environment..

We controlled for the effect of the size of the institution, which is likely to have an influence in level of public communication activity; and for the effect of research budget given the well know the varying distribution of national research budgets in different countries and disciplines.

Size is a count variable for the number of researchers working at the institute. This variable was recoded as (1) less than 20 researchers), (2) 20–80 researchers, (3) 80 researchers or more.

Annual Research budget is a categorical variable measured at the ordinal level: (1) less than €100.000, (2) €100.000- €250.000 euros, (3) €250.000–500.000, (4) €500.000-€1M, and (5) more than €1M. Amounts were converted from the country’s local currency.

Country is recoded into 8 dichotomous variables; the agriculture (highest level of activity) is the reference category. Research area is recoded into 6 dichotomous variables; Brazil is the reference category.

D variables: Dispositions to communicate publicly.

Active researchers . To measure the level of researchers’ involvement, we asked institutes what “percentage of researchers [in your research institute] engaged in public communication activities in the past 12 months?” This was an ordinal variable coded (1) for none, (2) less than 10%, (3) 10%-20%, (4) between 20%-40%, (5) 40%-60%, (6) 60–100%.

Communications policy . We asked institutes whether they had a policy in place for public communication; ‘policy’ was a binary variable coded (1) yes, (0) no. About 48% of the institutes reported having a policy in place for public communication.

Communications staff . We asked institutes whether they employed specialist staff dedicated to public communication tasks. Options were (1) we have staff ‘within the institute’, (2) ‘we do not have staff within the institute but have access to the central level/PR office of the institution/university’, and (3) ‘none’. This variable was recoded into a binary with (1) for’ staff within the unit’, and (0) ‘no local staff’ (this combined original options 2 and 3), because we wanted to distinguish between those institutes that employ staff and those that do not. In 38% of institutes there are specialist communications staff; M = 2 to 3 FTE staff among institutes that reported employing communications staff.

Communications funding . We asked institutes “how much of your annual budget have you allocated in the past 12 months to public communication activities? Please do not consider salaries of ‘communication staff’.” This was an ordinal estimate coded (1) none, <1% (coded 2), 1–5% (coded 3), 5–10% (coded 4), >10% (coded 5). About 52% reported spending < = 1%.

See S5 Table for distribution of responses by variables.

Statistical analysis

We used one-way ANOVAs to compare across groups ( S6 Table ) and pairwise Bonferroni post hoc tests to determine which groups differed significantly from each other. We use two-step hierarchical regression models and investigate the effects of the two sets of variables. Country and disciplinary cultures are likely to have an effect on public communication, in addition to institutes’ characteristics such as size and research budget, inserted in step 1, Model 1). In step 2, we determined whether D factors showed a significant improvement in the proportion of explained variance in our dependent variables (Model 2). We compare the effect of the predictors by comparing the standardised regression coefficients. We report the adjusted R 2 , R 2 Change, and F values, Unstandardised coefficients, and Standardised Beta values, and p values ( S7 – S9 Tables). We used an alpha level of .05 for all statistical tests. All models were significant and explained a substantive amount of the variance.

To address our goals, we asked institutes about the type and frequency of public communication activities they had organised or in which they had participated during the previous year, and how these were resourced. Public communication activities are any event or media activity to any non-peer public. To compare communication activities, we estimated one-way ANOVA models by country and research area (Figs 1 – 3 ). For these analyses, we used indices of number of public events, traditional news media, and new media channels. For the subsequent analyses of drivers of activity, we use continuous indices of intensity (see factor scores described in the Methods section) ( Fig 4 ).

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

Estimated average number of public events, traditional news media, and new media channels by research institutes, in the twelve months prior to the study. ( N = 2,030).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235191.g001

Estimated average number of public events, traditional media, and social media channels by research institutes, in the twelve months prior to the study. ( N = 2,030).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235191.g002

Institutes were asked how frequently they used each online mean, on a 5-point scale form ‘never’ to ‘daily’.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235191.g003

Diamonds represent the standardised betas and the whiskers the 95% CIs (confidence intervals) (see S7 – S9 Tables for representation of all variables in the models).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235191.g004

Emerging public communication at the level of research institutes

The data show that most research institutes across the surveyed countries and scientific areas engage in a variety of public events and traditional media channels, and to a lesser extent in new media (Figs 1 – 3 ). As a benchmark, the median institute reports 21 public events (M = 33, SD = 0.9) and 25 media interactions (M = 46, SD = 1.5) per year respectively (only around 7% of the institutes did not report events and media contacts), and the median institute reports 52 online interactions per year (M = 146, SD = 4.8) ( S3 Table ). However, online interactions occur mostly through institutional websites (73% reported updating these at least monthly), with a large proportion of institutes reporting never using Facebook or Twitter (46% and 60% respectively) ( Fig 3 ). We also find that overall, institutes more active in one type of means of public communication are also more active in the others (shown by the strong positive correlations between the indices ( S10 Table ). Yet, high activity is concentrated in a small subset of institutes; 30% of all institutes reported activities above the average frequency, in all means of communications.

Institutes also reported on their commitment to public communication. Half have adopted communication policies of some kind or the other, four in ten employ communications staff and half rely on central communications or PR offices to disseminate their news; the average institute spends around 3% of its annual research budget on public communications. This seems to indicate, that public communication is not yet fully institutional and taken-for-granted among research institutes; we find however evidence of a growing commitment over the past 5 years: respondents said public communication of science had increased in most institutes (61%) and started in another third; and expectations are for continuous growth with about half expecting to dedicate more resources in the coming years, and 90% expecting their research staff to engage in public communication.

Differences across countries and areas of research

Figs 1 and 2 show public communication activity compared across countries and sciences. We find significant differences in levels of activity across countries and sciences, as determined by one-way between country and sciences ANOVAs ( S6 Table ), but these differences are overall small. Analyses using the Bonferroni post-hoc significance testing show statistically significant differences only among some of the countries and sciences. For all three dependent variables, the reported number of public events is significantly higher in Brazil (M = 52, SD = 28) than elsewhere (p<0.001), and significantly lower in Japan (M = 17, SD = 22) than elsewhere (p<0.001). There is no statistically significant difference in public event making among Italy (M = 40, SD = 43), Germany (M = 33, SD = 38), Portugal (M = 30, SD = 34), the Netherlands (N = 40, SD = 40), and the USA (M = 34, SD = 37) (p >.05), but activities are lower among UK institutes (M = 26, SD = 21) than in Italy, the Netherlands, and Brazil. Traditional media channels are used more frequently in Italy (M = 58, SD = 78) and Brazil (M = 81, SD = 101) than elsewhere. The differences in activity between Germany, Portugal, the Netherlands, the UK and the USA are not significant (p < .05). The use of new media is lower in Germany (M = 92, SD = 150) and Japan (M = 65, SD = 114) compared to the other countries (for example, the UK reports M = 192, SD = 209, and Brazil reports M = 276, SD = 312); though the Netherlands (M = 137, SD = 194) is not different from Germany (both showing lower activity). All other comparisons were insignificant (p < .05).

Fig 2 shows also small differences among the various sciences for public event making and traditional media, and no differences in the use of social media. Substantive differences are found between the medical sciences (M = 28, SD = 33) that engage less in public events and traditional media channels than agricultural sciences (M = 37, SD = 43) and the natural sciences (M = 36, SD = 42). All other comparisons are statistically insignificant (p>.05). These results confirm our expectations that there is variation in the activity of research institutes across countries and different scientific contexts, in the means they use.

Drivers of institutional public communication activity

To examine what factors might predict the level of public communication activity in events, traditional channels, and new media, we run hierarchical multiple regressions, controlling for all other variables ( S7 – S9 Tables).

Models 1 show that organisational context variables account for 13% of the variance. Institute size and research budget have a positive effect on all three main variables. These effects are kept significant in Models 2, controlling for all other conditions, further confirming the importance of these variables. Yet, it is interesting to note that size exerts a higher influence on event making (B = .127, p < .001) and traditional news media (B = .124, p < .001) than it does in social media (B = 0.06, p = 0.027). Larger institutes with larger research budgets tend to organise more public events and have a higher presence in traditional media. Country and research area also make important contributions, as we expected, and the effects of these variables remain significant in Models 2, further confirming the importance of country and disciplinary cultures for public communication of research institutes together with the size of the institute and the funding available for research.

D variables explain an additional 13–14% of the variance, for all three dependent variables (Models 2), when all other conditions are controlled ( Fig 4 ). Models 2 thus explain the intensity of public communication above and beyond the variables in Models 1, and the increase in the R 2 is statistically significant, and all commitment variables show positive associations with the level of activity. For example, Fig 4 shows that ‘active researchers’ explain a higher percentage of the variation in public events (B = .220, p < .001) and in traditional media (B = .210, p < .001) than the budget for communications (B = .011, p < .001; while the budget for communications (B = .180, p < .001) and communications staff (B = .160, p < .001) show stronger effects on the level of activity in social media than do the other commitment indicators ( S7 – S9 Tables). These findings support our model according to which both context C and disposition D factors contribute independently and jointly to the level of public communication of research institutes.

In this international study, we examined the public communication activities of research institutes across eight countries using random probability sampling stratified by research areas. We built on our exploratory research [ 1 ] to investigate factors that predict levels of activity in different formats of public communication, and report here for the first-time comparative evidence of activities across formats. We made three main observations.

Our first observation is that public communication remains far from being fully instituted and taken-for-granted across research institutes in universities and large research organisations. However, we found evidence for increasing capacity building and commitment of resources. Overall, traditional news media are the most used formats of communication by research institutes, and social media networks play only a marginal role. These results confirm our preliminary findings [ 1 ] and corroborate findings of another study in German universities [ 13 ], which show higher engagement in traditional news channels and only a small percentage of larger organisations engaging in social media. The large number of smaller institutes we survey here would be a structural reason for the reluctance to invest in new media. In our study, however, size is not among the most important determinants for the use of social media, but rather the resources that institutes have available. This is a surprise for us given that fast, low effort, and wide reach of new media platforms, which could play in favour of smaller institutes with less resources. Yet, the findings suggest that in the countries surveyed, smaller institutes that are more committed to public communication can have a higher profile in social media. We note, however, that concerning digital communication, while the website is the most used channel by almost all the surveyed countries, social media channels are popular among Brazilian institutes, particularly Facebook with 34% using it daily. This corroborates findings from other sources which confirm this trend in social media use in Brazil [ 36 ] [ 37 ].It is also possible that, to a certain extent, the communication practice of the institutions reflects the preferences of the demand side. In all the surveyed countries, most people still obtain their news about science from the traditional news media [ 38 ] [ 39 ]. Social media play almost no role as a source of information about science and technology among general audiences (e.g. 65% of European citizens get their information from television and 10% from social media or blogs) [ 38 ]. Thus, a scientific institution with limited resources acts rationally if it does not use social media, which is largely free of science audience. Also, we cannot rule out that institutes attach lower value to such channels for reaching their intended communication goals and audiences. Social media have been hyped to foster science communication [ 40 ], yet real evidence for this is limited or contradictory. For instance, social media have a poor reputation in Germany, especially among the more educated population, including scientists [ 41 ]. They are regarded as the playground of conspiracy theorists, as well as the place where small communities of opinion constantly confirm their own prejudices in largely closed bubbles. Moreover, many scientists consider it neither possible nor useful to convey the complexity of their research in short news items (tweets) [ 41 ], and the use of social media to communicate with the broad public has been found low among scientists, regardless of the discipline [ 26 ] [ 25 ].

Also, it was perhaps surprising for us to find such a high predominance of face-to-face events. However, these figures on public events could suggest public engagement being ‘event-focused’ at the level of the institutes. And, if we consider institutional events and new institutional media together, this may indicate that institutes are more in control of their public science communication and less dependent from the traditional gate keepers in the news media, which may be more in evidence at the central communications level Yet, this claim needs further investigation.

A second observation concerns variation: public communication activities differ across countries and sciences, yet, the small differences found were to a certain extent, unexpected for us. This confirms that regarding institutional communication, factors other than country and disciplinary cultures need to be considered, further supporting the validity of our model. Nevertheless, the differences found allow us to say that country and scientific area determine in part the level of communication activity in which a research institute engages. This is not entirely unexpected as countries have different national histories of science and education [ 42 ] [ 43 ] and commit to societal engagement of science in different ways through, for instance, policy imperatives, public debates, government directives, or promote some sciences before others (different public visibility of disciplines). For instance, the somewhat higher level of outreach activity in the agricultural sciences may go back to the tradition of USA land-grant universities and their extension services [ 44 ], which expanded internationally to many countries [ 45 ] [ 46 ]. It might also reflect the many controversies over the years on agriculture related topics (climate change, biofuels, or genetically modified crops). The ready presence of interested stakeholders (e.g. farmers) and the applied nature of the research might also be relevant. These factors might well have boosted communications structures in these fields. In contrast, the medical and health sciences may not have faced such stimuli towards public engagement, which while not entirely clear for us, may find some explanation in their communication focusing around the individual doctor-patient relationship [ 47 ]. But the fact that the medical sciences may be more susceptible to politicisation and driven by external funding for research [ 48 ] [ 49 ], may also explain part of this phenomenon.

Also, the similar level of communication activity across the countries surveyed allows us to say that differences are more in evidence if we compare global regions rather than individual countries. Europe and North America seem to perform similarly, compared to Brazil (South America) and Japan (Asia). Studies of scientists, although not directly comparable, have also pointed to this issue. For example, a five-country survey of medical scientists showed slightly higher media interactions among Western scientists (USA, France, Germany and UK) [ 28 ] than among scientists in Japan, and Entradas and Bauer (2019) [ 25 ] found lower interactions with the media and the public more broadly among astronomers in Asia compared to other global regions. This could suggest that science communication has continental features, but this needs further investigation as our data are limited to a small number of countries. Brazil generally shows higher levels of activity; this could be related to the fact that Brazilian research institutes in our sample are on average larger than elsewhere, and larger units generally communicate more.

Thirdly, we show that variation in communication is associated with institutional commitment to public communication such as having a policy in place, professional communications staff and available funding. We cannot however conclude whether more activity is a result of more resources, or if it is because institutions see communication as an important activity and duty, and thus dedicate more resources to it. For example, there could be a policy and staff because an institution is very active (instead of the other way around).But, overall, this seems to suggest that research institutes seeking to increase their public visibility employ professional communications staff to build media relations and to build a social media profile, while research scientists remain the main protagonists of public events.

Our observations urge us to think about public communication of science not as a country or discipline feature, but a profile arising from an ordered combination of context (C) and disposition (D) factors. For example, having professional staff will not lead to higher activity, but if there are no staff, an institute is unlikely to become highly active. These factors determine in combination the level of different types of communication activities of research institutes showed here. This might be particularly visible in market-oriented country universities such as the USA and UK, while in Italy and Germany the institutional ethos is stronger and communication is seen as a public good.

Conclusions

Our data point to a growing international phenomenon and a potential change in the culture of academic institutions to open up their research to unspecific publics at the level of research institutes. Such opening up is well documented at policy level, at the level of universities, or at the level of individual researchers building a public profile. Here we document this phenomenon also at the level of research institutes. This change has been embraced across countries and disciplines, with varying intensity. Our results support our expectations that organisational context and disposition factors explain this variance, and we provide baseline measurements for institutional public communication. From this research new questions emerge that call for further study. For example, what are the consequences of this resource mobilisation and what are the implications of this professionalisation for the conduct of science itself and for the public conversation about science? Does this mean that resources hitherto earmarked for research are increasingly rerouted into communication, and scientists are losing control over their story telling? Is this professionalization of public communication consistent with a medialisation of science and the strategic over-adaptation of science towards publicity and reputation [ 50 ]? Are professionalised staff a gain to science communication? Is this development increasing the autonomy and values of science or becoming a prisoner of a logic of competing for public visibility [ 51 ]? Most people consider more communication a better thing. However, we might have to consider here as elsewhere the unintended consequence of good intentions. Also, at the level of institutes, public communication of research might turn into a marketing exercise and detach itself from the original aims of public engagement, which are to contribute to public debates. An ‘arms race’ for public visibility between research institutes could bias the research system towards non-research activities and thus risk undermining core research activities, not least for the smaller players. Future research must investigate the implications of this professionalisation for science communication and the narratives of this public communication that emerges from research institutes, as well as the values that support this effort.

Limitations

This study reports the largest and most systematic survey of research institutes’ practices of public communication of science so far, and being one of the larger surveys of science communication in scope and comparability marks an important contribution to the empirical literature on public engagement of science. But no study answers all possible questions, nor all the questions beyond reasonable doubt. There is a need for further investigation in other regions where there were a limited number of countries such as Asia and South America, but it should also extent to other regions including Africa to better understand the variation of activity across global regions. Also, our models explain only a part of the variance of public communication activity. Other factors should be brought into consideration to improve explanatory power.

Supporting information

S1 table. sampling frames and procedures employed in each country..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235191.s001

S2 Table. Number of institutions contacted (N), number of institutions that responded (N) by country and areas of research, unweighted (RR) and weighted response rates (WRR).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235191.s002

S3 Table. Descriptive for indices from sum of activities.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235191.s003

(a) (b), and (c) Confirmatory factor analysis loadings for variables public events, traditional channels and new media.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235191.s004

S5 Table. Descriptive statistics for main variables.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235191.s005

S6 Table. Analysis of variance by country and area of research.

Abreviations: Sum of squares (SS); df (degrees of freedom); MS (Mean Square); F statistic (F) and (p (significance value), and Eta (strength of the relationship).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235191.s006

S7 Table. Hierarchical regression analysis for public communication activity in public events showing the two-step analysis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235191.s007

S8 Table. Hierarchical regression analysis for public communication activity in traditional media channels showing the two-step analysis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235191.s008

S9 Table. Hierarchical regression analysis for public communication activity in social media channels showing the two-step analysis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235191.s009

S10 Table. Correlations between main variables.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235191.s010

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235191.s011

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235191.s012

Acknowledgments

We thank J Brammall for support with the figures.

• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 7. Options for Strengthening Responsible Research and Innovation. http://europa.eu
• 15. Entradas M, Bauer MW. Kommunikationsfunktionen im Mehrebenensystem Hochschule. In: Forschungsfeld Hochschulkommunikation. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden; 2018. p. 97–122.
• 18. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2014. OECD Publishing.
• 19. National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and M. Communicating science effectively: A research agenda. National Academies Press; 2017.
• 29. Entradas M et al. The late bloom of (modern) science communication in Portugal. In: Gascoigne T, editor. The emergence of modern science communication. ANU Press.
• 30. Lewin K. Principles of Topological Psychology. McGraw-Hill, editor. New York; 1936.
• 32. Dillman DA. Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1978.
• 36. Centro de Gestão e Estudos Estratégicos. Percepção pública da C&T no Brasil– 2019. Resumo executivo. Brasília, DF: 2019. 24p. Disponível em: https://www.cgee.org.br/documents/10195/734063/CGEE_resumoexecutivo_Percepcao_pub_CT.pdf
• 37. GlobalWebIndex (2019). Social media trends in 2019. https://www.globalwebindex.com/reports/social-2019
• 39. National Science Board. Science and Technology Indicators. Washington, DC; 2016.
• 41. Rümmele K. Öffentliche Wissenschaft und Neue Medien: Die Rolle der Web 2.0-Kultur in der Wissenschaftsvermittlung. Robertson-von Trotha CY& JMM, editor. Karlsruhe: KIT Scientific Publishing; 2012. 157–168.
• 50. Weingart P, Maasen S. Elite Through Rankings–The Emergence Of the Enterprising University. In Springer, Dordrecht; 2007; 75–99.

How to Improve Communication Skills: 14 Best Worksheets

“Instead of condemning people, let’s try to understand them. Let’s try to figure out why they do what they do. That’s a lot more profitable and intriguing than criticism and it breeds sympathy, tolerance and kindness.”

But how do we put this strategy into action?

In this post, we’ll give you the tools to be a strategic and effective communicator, no matter your context, by walking you through a range of worksheets, digital activities, and resources to discover better communication.

Before you continue, we thought you might like to download our three Positive Communication Exercises (PDF) for free . These science-based tools will help you and those you work with build better social skills and better connect with others.

This Article Contains:

How to improve communication skills, 3 examples of good communication skills, 3 most effective worksheets and tools, 3 games for developing communication skills, assessing your client’s skills: 3 questionnaires & scales, using digital tools to improve communication, how to use quenza: 5 benefits of digital platforms, communication resources from positivepsychology.com, a take-home message.

Whether you’re delivering a presentation to a room full of conference attendees or hashing out a disagreement with your partner, many of the skills you need to achieve your goals in these different scenarios will be the same.

To improve your communication techniques, scholars recommend training in the following skills.

Perspective taking

Defined as a cognitive attempt to consider another’s viewpoint (Longmire & Harrison, 2018), perspective taking enables us to communicate in a way that is likely to resonate with others in the way we intended.

Perspective taking is often referred to as putting yourself in another’s shoes.

For instance, when preparing a presentation, we can take the perspective of our audience by considering their background knowledge on the subject of our talk. By doing so, we can communicate in a way that will match the listeners’ level of background knowledge, rather than leaving them in the dust.

Likewise, we can be intentional about trying to take our partner’s perspective during a disagreement by imagining how our actions might make them feel or by imagining how we would feel if the roles in the conflict were reversed.

Usually, this involves showing empathy to the person you are speaking to and creating space for their emotions.

Self-awareness

Self-awareness involves being able to see yourself clearly and objectively through reflection and introspection . It requires you to separate your sense of identity from your thoughts and emotions.

But why is this important?

According to organizational psychologist Tasha Eurich (Workforce.com, 2020), we can only be as good at influence or collaboration (and a range of other skills) as we are at self-awareness. That is to say, if we work to develop our self-awareness , it can have a ripple effect on our ability to communicate, engage, and empathize with others.

In the example of delivering a conference presentation, self-awareness may help us recognize that we appear withdrawn when speaking to a crowd. This awareness then enables us to amend our behavior and style of communication.

Likewise, in the example of the disagreement with a partner, self-awareness might help us recognize our tendency to grow defensive to perceived criticism in a particular area. Self-awareness can counter this, allowing us to remain open minded and curious in such discussions.

In sum, good communication involves balancing our own perspective with that of others to convey a message successfully and accept feedback .

To empathize is to

“respond to another’s perceived emotional state by experiencing feelings of a similar sort.”

Chismar, 1988, p. 257

Showing empathy is another way to take the perspective of a conversation partner by acknowledging and validating their emotions in a situation.

No matter the situation, there’s usually a place for empathic communication. Let’s look at three scenarios. For each, see if you can identify the more empathic response out of the two response options.

A nasty bruise

• Scenario : You are having coffee with your sibling, and they hold out their arm to reveal a dark welt on their arm. “Check out this bruise from my fall down the stairs!” they say.

Which of the following is the more empathic response?

• Response A : You squint at the bruise. “That’s tiny,” you say. “Look at what I got when I was hit by a bike!”
• Response B : You wince. “Ouch! I can imagine that must have really hurt.”

Problems with Mom

• Scenario : You’re walking down the street in conversation with a friend. He’s been describing a recent conversation with his mother, in which he grew very frustrated. “When she shows up at my house without calling first, it’s stressful for me, but I can’t get her to listen to my point of view.”
• Response A : “I’m sure it’s just because she really wants to see you.”
• Response B : “I can imagine that must be really frustrating if you never know when she’s going to stop by.”

Missing money

• Scenario : You and your friend are at the counter at a coffee shop. As your friend goes to pay, her card gets declined. “I can’t understand where all my money goes after I get paid,” she laments.
• Response A : “I reckon you should make a budget.”
• Response B : “Yeah, it’s annoying when money disappears like that.”

In each of the above scenarios, Response B is the more empathic option. In these responses, the speaker validates the other person’s emotions and reflects them back to the other person.

Download 3 Communication Exercises (PDF)

These detailed, science-based exercises will equip you or your clients with tools to improve communication skills and enjoy more positive social interactions with others.

Download 3 Free Communication Tools Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

• Email Address *
• Your Expertise * Your expertise Therapy Coaching Education Counseling Business Healthcare Other
• Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Let’s now look at three free worksheets and tools you can use to help develop your clients’ perspective taking, self-awareness, and empathy when communicating.

• Active Listening Reflection Worksheet This worksheet provides a useful summary of the techniques involved in active listening . Once the techniques have been reviewed, clients can practice them in pairs or groups or reflect on a recent conversation with someone in their life to apply their learning.
• Trading Places Worksheet The Trading Places worksheet takes your client through 10 steps to help them imagine a situation from another’s perspective. These steps can be especially useful when a client is struggling to move forward following a disagreement with someone in their life.
• How to Improve Communication in Relationships: 7 Essential Skills This simple leaflet details seven approaches and frameworks to better understand how we communicate and develop our skills in relating to others.

Check out these three games for both children and adults, designed to make strengthening communication with others fun:

• 500 Years Ago In this free worksheet , players attempt to describe modern-day phenomena to their partner, who pretends they have no knowledge of the modern world because they are from long in the past. In each round, the speaker must practice empathic communication and perspective taking by tailoring their language to their old-timey listener.
• Shuffle In this game , five children race to occupy four positions at the corners of a square marked on the floor. As kids play rounds of rock–paper–scissors to resolve disputes, the game will introduce them to the basic principles of conflict and negotiation .
• Where Should We Begin? A Game of Stories In this card game by leading psychotherapist Esther Perel, players take turns drawing cards to tell stories about themselves, their hopes, and their dreams. In doing so, participants can grow closer and share greater intimacy through the power of storytelling.

Communication skills – how to improve communication skills

Want to assess your client’s communication skills? Look at these three useful questionnaires and scales:

• Effective Communication Styles Inventory This test uses 15 forced-choice items to help individuals determine their preferred communication styles, including thinking, doing, collaborating, and creating.
• The Revised Self-Monitoring Scale This scale by Lennox and Wolfe (1984) is a 13-item adaptation of Snyder’s (1974) 25-item Self-Monitoring Scale. This reconfigured scale is a useful way to help clients assess two facets of their communication: their ability to modify their self-presentation and their sensitivity to the expressions of others.
• The Communication Effectiveness Profile This 84-item inventory provides a comprehensive assessment of seven factors contributing to good or bad communication, including empathizing and the ability to read nonverbal cues .

World’s Largest Positive Psychology Resource

The Positive Psychology Toolkit© is a groundbreaking practitioner resource containing over 500 science-based exercises , activities, interventions, questionnaires, and assessments created by experts using the latest positive psychology research.

Updated monthly. 100% Science-based.

“The best positive psychology resource out there!” — Emiliya Zhivotovskaya , Flourishing Center CEO

Many of the social skills that contribute to effective communication in face-to-face situations are equally important when communicating virtually.

Thankfully, many new tools, games, and approaches are emerging to help facilitate communication training and skill development through virtual channels.

3 Games for your videoconferencing sessions

• Synonym challenge Get everyone engaged, expand your vocabulary, and warm up your call participants with the synonym challenge.

Time: About one minute per round How to play : Determine a turn order for each participant in the call. Begin by having the first player say a word. Participants must then proceed in sequence, saying synonyms for that original word without repeating a word already said. The first player to take longer than five seconds to say a word is eliminated from the next round.

• Virtual escape rooms Emerging research has pointed to escape rooms as possible avenues for developing team capabilities and creative problem solving (Adams, Burger, Crawford, & Setter, 2018; Cohen et al., 2020). Why not try one out with your team?

Time: About one hour How to play : With virtual escape rooms, players must work in teams to watch videos, track clues, and cooperate, all to escape a virtual environment or race another team to complete a series of puzzles.

See The Escape Game for a popular virtual escape room provider and more information.

• Virtual murder mystery Break the ice and have fun with role-play at your next video call get-together by solving a quirky murder mystery.

Time: Typically one to two hours How to play : Each participant in a call is assigned a character or role with background information about their motivations and why they might be a suspect in a central murder mystery. Participants must then chat with one another in character to deduce information about the possible murderer (or point the finger at someone else if they are the murderer).

Check out the whodunnit app for a popular virtual murder mystery provider.

A look at Quenza software

If you’re a counselor, therapist, or social worker looking for tools to help your clients improve their communication, be sure to check out the growing library of pre-programmed tools available via the platform Quenza .

We designed this platform in collaboration with the positive psychology community to put leading science-backed worksheets and tools directly into the hands of helping practitioners and their clients.

To illustrate, here are just a couple of communication tools available through the platform, which you can access and try for yourself for just $1 :

• Learning to Say No Living in line with your values means you will sometimes need to make choices that disappoint others. This seven-part mini-lesson will give your clients guidelines and practical advice for respectfully saying no in the service of their personal values.
• Eight Steps to Forgiveness When communication mishaps occur, forgiving others is easier said than done. This essential eight-step lesson is based on the teachings of forgiveness expert Dr. Robert Enright and will help your clients release themselves from the distress of betrayal and hurt feelings.

If you’re curious about using digital interventions as part of your relationship counseling, coaching, or psychology practice, consider how these interventions might interact with other elements of your business.

In general, using digital platforms can streamline many aspects of your workflow while enabling clients to work within an organized digital environment, where all their information is in one place.

Benefits of using digital platforms to deliver care can include the following:

• Access to professional tools to develop digital activities, learning pathways, and lessons
• The ability to sort clients according to groups and initiate actions that affect all group members (e.g., sending homework materials)
• The creation of a centralized location to store clients’ contact information and documentation
• Access to modern security features (e.g., HIPAA/GDPR compliance)
• The ability to connect with other practitioners to share best practice learnings

Quenza offers all these benefits, and new features are always being added. Getting started with the platform takes only three steps:

• Sign up for a 30-day trial .
• View the brief quickstart video .
• Jump into the Activity Builder to begin preparing your first digital activity or browse the platform’s expansion library to select a pre-developed activity for your first client.

To learn more, take a look at the Quenza roadmap for a summary of existing and upcoming features.

17 Exercises To Develop Positive Communication

17 Positive Communication Exercises [PDFs] to help others develop communication skills for successful social interactions and positive, fulfilling relationships.

Created by Experts. 100% Science-based.

Looking for more resources to teach communication skills? Here are some free materials you can use when conducting therapy, coaching, or counseling with groups:

• Listening Accurately Worksheet This handout presents five simple steps to facilitate accurate listening and can help establish some basics for training in effective communication.
• Communicating an Idea Effectively This handout lists three key features of a well-explained idea and strategies for building these into one’s communication.
• Making Eye Contact Exercise This exercise is a fun way to kick off a group training day by warming up people’s non-verbal communication skills.
• Effective Communication in Therapy & Counseling: 17 Techniques This article about communication in therapy is a helpful guide for therapists as it provides a number of techniques that can be used to improve the therapeutic relationship.

Whether you’re the quietest person at a table or a smooth-talking socialite, the ability to put yourself in the shoes of those with whom you speak is key to effective communication.

Likewise, understanding yourself in terms of your strengths and potential biases when communicating can only serve you as you connect with others. Be sure to check out the resources throughout this post to help you or your clients develop these skills today for better relationships tomorrow.

We hope you’ve found this post and the listed resources useful. Let us know in the comments: What’s one technique or skill you’ve used to improve your communication?

We’d love to hear from you!

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don’t forget to download our three Positive Communication Exercises (PDF) for free .

• Adams, V., Burger, S., Crawford, K., & Setter, R. (2018). Can you escape? Creating an escape room to facilitate active learning. Journal for Nurses in Professional Development , 34 (2), E1–E5.
• Carnegie, D. (2019). How to win friends and influence people . Vermillion.
• Chismar, D. (1988). Empathy and sympathy: The important difference. The Journal of Value Inquiry , 22 (4), 257–266.
• Cohen, T. N., Griggs, A. C., Keebler, J. R., Lazzara, E. H., Doherty, S. M., Kanji, F. F., & Gewertz, B. L. (2020). Using escape rooms for conducting team research: Understanding development, considerations, and challenges. Simulation & Gaming , 51 (4), 443–460.
• Lennox, R. D., & Wolfe, R. N. (1984). Revision of the Self-Monitoring Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 46 (6), 1349–1364.
• Longmire, N. H., & Harrison, D. A. (2018). Seeing their side versus feeling their pain: Differential consequences of perspective-taking and empathy at work. Journal of Applied Psychology , 103 (8), 894–915.
• Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 30(4), 526-537.
• Workforce.com. (2020). Build self-awareness to develop influence [Video]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/yQ7ZfODyafw

Share this article:

Article feedback

What our readers think.

Very helpful tips. If you offer any continuing professional development courses or training sessions please let me know. Thank you.

Very informative.i appreciate.

Let us know your thoughts Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related articles

Analyzing & Interpreting Your Clients’ Body Language: 26 Tips

Darwin was one of the first individuals to explore the concept of body language in Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. He studied [...]

How to Say No & Master the Art of Personal Freedom

In a world that often values compliance over authenticity, the notion of personal freedom becomes not just a luxury but a necessity for our wellbeing [...]

Conflict Resolution Training: 18 Best Courses and Master’s Degrees

All humans have some things in common. We all need air to breathe and water to stay alive. We are all social beings, and if [...]

Read other articles by their category

• Body & Brain (52)
• Coaching & Application (39)
• Compassion (23)
• Counseling (40)
• Emotional Intelligence (22)
• Gratitude (18)
• Grief & Bereavement (18)
• Happiness & SWB (40)
• Meaning & Values (26)
• Meditation (16)
• Mindfulness (40)
• Motivation & Goals (41)
• Optimism & Mindset (29)
• Positive CBT (28)
• Positive Communication (23)
• Positive Education (37)
• Positive Emotions (32)
• Positive Leadership (16)
• Positive Parenting (14)
• Positive Psychology (21)
• Positive Workplace (35)
• Productivity (16)
• Relationships (46)
• Resilience & Coping (39)
• Self Awareness (20)
• Self Esteem (37)
• Strengths & Virtues (29)
• Stress & Burnout Prevention (33)
• Theory & Books (42)
• Therapy Exercises (37)
• Types of Therapy (54)

• Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.