When I started scientific communication coaching, I wanted to help scientists improve how they communicate research to their peers. I knew firsthand the annoying, time-sucking consequences that result when stakeholders and collaborators don’t understand your work.
I also knew this: Scientific research can be a thankless job, and the only glory many researchers receive for their hard work depends on whether others understand and appreciate it.
So I set out to help scientists get all the glory they can. They deserve it!
I wanted to give scientists the tools and techniques that professional communicators like writers, designers, and marketers use and take for granted but that are rarely part of scientific training.
At first, I thought the problem was fairly straightforward: Scientists do great research, but they don’t always communicate it well.
But over the past two years, I’ve spent a lot of time examining the consequences of poor scientific communication and talking with researchers about their experiences. And I’ve come to realize the problem is deeper than researchers simply not getting their “due” for great research.
It’s that the ability to communicate research and its significance is central to how audiences value the research—and the researchers who produce it.
If your audience doesn’t understand and value your work, they won’t value you for doing it.
Full stop.
Yes, it’s true that many researchers need to learn tools to make their work more understandable.
But many also need something more fundamental: They need tools to make their work relevant to the people they’re trying to reach.
They need to think differently about their research communications, to move away from thinking of it as “the thing I do at the end of a project” toward “this is a strategic activity designed to influence someone’s thinking.”
That means the primary problem isn’t how scientists construct their communications; rather, it’s how they think about them.
That’s why I train teams on thinking frameworks such as the 3 A’s—aim, audience, argument—and exercises like my three-question worksheet for honing a key message.
These tools help researchers determine what they want to get across before they start typing, which is one of the most important components of good communication.
And that doesn’t come naturally. Researchers are trained to gather information, analyze it, and document it. We’re not necessarily trained to step back and ask the following:
- What do I want this person to understand?
- Why does it matter to them?
- What is the one thing I want them to take away?
Those are the kinds of questions that need to be answered before you open PowerPoint because creating a clear, focused message tailored to the target audience is where the real communication work happens.
Now, two years in, I recognize the much more pressing problem to solve: How can I help researchers make their scientific expertise valuable to the people who need it?
Because excellent research doesn’t automatically earn recognition, being an expert doesn’t automatically make other people follow your recommendations, and doing important work doesn’t guarantee that other people will understand why it matters.
Effective scientific communication is the bridge between your expertise and the impact you want it to have.
Your friendly scientific communication coach,
Chief Simplicity Officer | science-clarity.com
If your team does excellent research but struggles to communicate its value, let’s talk.
I help research teams develop the communication skills they need to make their expertise clear, relevant, and useful to the people who need it.