Getting Research to Land: What Changes When the Audience Does

Recently, someone asked me a thoughtful and practical question: "Your work helps researchers connect with their audiences, but how do you adapt your approach when those audiences are outside the research world say.. tech companies or community organizations?"

It was an important question. Researchers often assume that their findings will naturally resonate across different audiences. But effective translation isn't about simplifying or diluting your insights; it's about relevance. Different groups—whether business leaders, policymakers, or community members—each have distinct languages, values, and ways of evaluating credibility. Increasingly, researchers across institutions, labs, and academia face growing pressure to demonstrate real-world impact in order to secure funding, form partnerships, find clients, or fulfill their missions.

If you want your insights to make a genuine difference outside of journals and conferences, you need to speak clearly and credibly in the language of your intended audience. In this blog, I'll guide you through exactly how to do that. We'll explore why traditional academic framing often falls short, and how to reshape your messaging to build trust, spark interest, and inspire meaningful action.

What You’ll Learn:

• The pitfalls of academic framing outside research environments.
• Methods for tailoring messages to business, nonprofit, and community audiences.
• The importance of signaling credibility and belonging.
• Concrete examples illustrating translation of research across different audiences.
• Curated resources to enhance your communication skills.

Why Academic Framing Fails Beyond Research Circles

Academic work is typically written by researchers for researchers. This “inside baseball” style can backfire when we step outside our field. The language, structure, and priorities of scholarly communication often alienate broader audiences. For instance, an academic article might look into theoretical nuance and statistical significance, but a manager or community leader asks, “So what does this mean for me?” As one communications expert noted, overwhelming laypeople with excessive detail or jargon will sink your message. Research findings hold academic value, yet their impact is diluted if presented in a way the broader public can’t easily understand. In short, if people can’t grasp it, it doesn’t matter how brilliant it is.

It’s not a language barrier it’s framing and expectations. Academic writing prioritizes exhaustive methodology, caveats, and discipline-specific context. But outside academia, audiences have different expectations for relevance and rigor. A CEO or policymaker might find a cautious, nuanced research summary “too abstract” or not actionable enough, while a scholar sees it as appropriate. These mismatched expectations can create a credibility gap. Decision-makers may question whether the research is practical, or even tune it out completely, if it doesn’t match their immediate priorities. One researcher recounts presenting evidence on workplace diversity to business leaders—only to face skepticism because the findings “went against their beliefs” and against rosy numbers they’d seen in the popular press. As he observed, people tend to trust information that fits their mental framework, and often trust a familiar industry name over an unknown researcher. In this case, the audience put more faith in a well-known consulting firm’s flashy statistic than in his careful meta-analysis, illustrating how academic credibility doesn’t automatically transfer to other contexts.

Consider how we package information. Academic papers hide the lede: practical implications might be buried after pages of theory, method, and findings. In contrast, a business executive summary leads with bottom-line results and recommendations. It’s illuminating to compare an academic abstract vs. an industry summary: Abstracts are concise and technical, meant for specialists, while executive summaries are action-oriented, highlighting solutions, outcomes, and the “so what?” for the people involved or impacted.

The academic abstract might say, “We conducted a randomized trial (N=300) and found a statistically significant reduction in error rates (p < .01).” A business summary of the same study would cut to the chase: “Our new process cut errors by 20%, potentially saving $500K in annual costs.” Both convey the same finding, but only one speaks the audience’s language.

The bottom line: when academic framing isn’t adjusted for outsiders, our message gets lost in translation.

How to Effectively Tailor Your Message

Different audiences require different approaches. The good news is you don’t have to “simplify” your work—you just need to reframe it in terms that resonate with what each audience values. Here’s how to tailor your communication for three key sectors:

For Business Audiences

When speaking to corporate leaders or industry groups, focus on tangible results and business implications. Busy executives won’t wade through theoretical exposition they want to know what problem you solved, and how it affects the bottom line. Emphasize metrics, outcomes, and ROI. For example, instead of highlighting the methodological rigor of your supply chain study, highlight that it “could reduce inventory costs by 15%” or “improve delivery time by 2 days,” and explain what that means in dollars or competitive advantage. Clarity and brevity are your friends: use plain language and get to the point quickly.

Also, speak to their priorities. Research on science communication in organizations notes that leaders often care most about outcomes and actionable insights. As one commentator observed, “leaders often want to know about outcomes and the best ways to drive these outcomes.” So frame your message around solving a pain point. For example, if your finding is about employee training techniques, translate it into a business KPI: “This approach improved employee productivity by 10%, which could translate into an extra 5 hours of output per week per employee.” By casting your results in terms of efficiency, cost, revenue, or risk (whichever matters to that audience), you make it immediately relevant.

Let’s illustrate with a quick before-and-after.

• Here’s an academic phrasing: “Our algorithm achieves a higher classification accuracy on benchmark data.”
• A business reframing might be: “Using this algorithm could improve customer fraud detection rates, potentially saving $2M annually in prevented fraud.”

Notice the business version adds the implication (saving money) and uses concrete terms. It also avoids needless technical jargon. You’re not hiding the science you’re actually spotlighting the part of the science that matters to them. And if you need to convey uncertainty or limitations, do it in a straightforward way: e.g. “If adopted, we estimate a 10–15% improvement in X, based on preliminary trials.” This shows rigor without drowning them in p-values. (Even though you and I LOVE to know those, keep in mind researchers like this information and not people in business).

Finally, remember that business audiences appreciate recommendations. A researcher might stop at “here are the findings.” In a business context, go further: “Here’s what we suggest you do with this insight.” That might be implementing a pilot program, adopting a policy, etc. By tailoring your tone and content to be solution-oriented and aligned with business goals, you’ll find a much warmer reception.

For Nonprofits and Government Audiences

When engaging with policymakers, government agencies, or nonprofit organizations, the emphasis shifts to social impact, policy relevance, and the public good. These audiences aren’t looking for profit; they’re looking for positive change aligned with their mission. So frame your work in terms of community benefits, policy implications, or cost-effectiveness for public services.

Start by connecting your research to current issues or policy debates. If you developed a new education curriculum, explain how it could boost literacy rates or help meet a specific education mandate. If your research is on environmental science, link it to policy targets (e.g. “These findings could inform more effective water conservation policies, potentially saving 10 billion gallons of water annually in our state.”). The goal is to show “Here’s how this research helps solve a problem that people care about.”

Clarity is important here as well—perhaps even more so, since your audience may include non-technical stakeholders like elected officials, community leaders, or voters. Use accessible language and vivid examples that illustrate public impact. For instance, rather than “Our model employs a multi-variate analysis of epidemiological data,” say “Our study shows which neighborhoods are most at risk of disease X, which can help target public health efforts.” Emphasize outcomes like improved health, reduced inequality, safer communities, etc.

One powerful technique is to frame your message around human stories or real-life scenarios. Nonprofit and government audiences respond well to narratives that put data in human terms. For example, if your research is about healthcare access, you might start with a brief story of “Jane, a single mother who struggled to get care…this research is about fixing that.” By humanizing the issue, you signal that you understand and care about the same goals as your audience. I talk about how to apply narrative techniques in this article if you are interested in learning more.

Make sure to signal credibility in policy terms. This means noting evidence and scale: e.g. “Based on a study of 5,000 residents across three counties...” or “Aligned with findings from the CDC, our research suggests…”. You want to position your work as a trusted knowledge source that can guide effective action. However, avoid overwhelming them with statistical minutiae—provide the gist and offer to supply detailed data if needed. Often, a policy brief or one-page summary works better than a dense report here.

A useful concept is Strategic Frame Analysis®, developed by the FrameWorks Institute. It’s essentially about framing your message to fit the values and narratives of the public and policymakers. For instance, if advocating for early childhood education they might recommend framing it around future societal benefits and fairness (values) instead of just immediate technical details. Always ask yourself: What does this audience value, and how does my research connect to that? Adapt your tone accordingly—perhaps a bit more formal and evidence-focused for government, and more passionate or values-driven for nonprofit advocacy.

Example: A finding on urban tree cover could be framed to a city council as: “Planting trees isn’t just aesthetic our data shows it can lower city temperatures by 3°F and reduce heatstroke incidents by 20%. That means fewer emergency calls and lives saved in our heatwaves.” Now you’ve shown the policy relevance (public health and safety), backed by a statistic, and tied it to outcomes that matter to constituents. That’s far more compelling than an academic title like “Urban Vegetation and Microclimate: A Statistical Analysis,” which doesn’t signal the real-world stakes.

For Community Members ("General Public")

When communicating with people like community groups, patients, school families, etc., the key is make it relatable, clear, and directly relevant to daily life. This is perhaps the greatest test of your communication, because you must drop all jargon and speak to a friend who just isn’t into research.

But here's the thing: the "general public" doesn't actually exist as a single, defined audience, despite what many researchers think. In reality, if you try speaking to everyone at once, your message won't resonate with anyone. Instead, you need to identify your specific audience segments clearly. If you're thinking, "Wait, I thought I just needed to follow the tips in this blog," you're definitely on the right path but communication itself is a science and lucky for you, I wrote an article on it.

So, what are the main rules when writing for community members?

The first rule: plain language. Strip out technical terms or explain them in simple words. If your work is on nutrition science, don’t say “adipose tissue” say “body fat.” If it’s on machine learning, skip “neural network” and try “a computer program that learns patterns, kind of like a brain.” You get the idea.

You’re not simplifying the content, you’re translating it. In fact, finding clear words often clarifies your own understanding. As the Times Higher Education guide on public engagement puts it, researchers should “use clear, simple language that is accessible and jargon-free.” Your goal is for a curious 15-year-old or a busy parent to easily understand your message. The easier it is to understand the more likely it is to stick with them and be shared.

Next, highlight practical applications and personal impact. Community audiences care about how research might affect them or their loved ones. So explicitly connect the dots: “What does this mean for you?” For example, “This medical study matters because it could change how your doctor screens for disease X, catching it earlier.” Or “Our research on flood prevention could mean lower insurance premiums for homeowners in this area.” Always answer the unspoken question, “Why should I care?” If you answer that, you’ve got their attention.

Using stories, metaphors, and visuals is especially powerful for community outreach. Humans are storytelling creatures.

Turn your research into a narrative: set up a problem, show the discovery, emphasize the positive change that comes from it. If your research is abstract, use metaphors or analogies to something familiar. One physicist explained gravitational waves to the public by likening them to the ripples you’d see if you knocked over a glass of water on a trampoline suddenly, people got it. As Leith et al. advise, analogies and real-world examples can bridge abstract ideas into relatable terms. Likewise, visuals like infographics or simple charts can convey findings at a glance. For a general audience, a picture is worth a thousand words of equation. In fact, science communicators often recommend formats like interactive visuals, videos, or community workshops for maximal engagement.

Let’s say your research is on improving local water quality through a new filtration method. A researcher would talk about microfiltration rates. A community message would be: “Good news: our team found a way to make our river water cleaner. In fact, it could remove 99% of the bad bacteria – meaning safer drinking water and a healthier environment for our kids.” Add an invite: “Come see our demo on Saturday and learn how this works!” You’ve made it about them (healthier water for our kids), kept it simple (no detailed mechanism), but still truthful (99% bacteria removal). Notice also the tone: inclusive and inviting. This is part of what some call “membership signaling” or showing that you understand the community’s values and that you’re on the same page.

One real example of community-oriented research translation is a case where scientists turned a complex conflict analysis method into an interactive visual story. In Mayer et al. (2024), the researchers created three versions of an interactive visual narrative to explain a data inference technique to different audiences. Even other researchers who weren’t specialists in that method benefited greatly from the visual storytelling approach. The takeaway for us: presenting information in a more visual, story-driven way can dramatically increase understanding and engagement, even for technical content. Think of how you might do similar: could you create a simple before-and-after chart, a short video, or a hands-on demonstration? These formats can make your findings tangible for community members, sparking that “aha, I see how this works and why it matters” moment.

In summary, for the public: be accessible, be practical, and whenever possible, be visual and story-driven. If you do it right, you’ll not only inform people you’ll excite and empower them with your knowledge, which is one of the most rewarding parts of scholarly work.

Building Trust through Membership Signaling

Even if you tailor your message expertly, one challenge remains: trust. When you’re a researcher stepping into a business, policy, or community arena, you’re essentially an outsider asking people to believe you. That’s where membership signaling comes in. This concept, rooted in communication and signaling theory, is about demonstrating “I get you, and I’m one of you (at least for today)” so that audiences accept you into their circle long enough to hear you out.

First, let’s define signaling in this context. In economics and management theory, signaling refers to how one party conveys credible information to another, especially when trust or information is uneven. For example, a job candidate might signal their quality with a degree from a top school. In communication, you signal credibility through cues in your language, demeanor, and format. Research by Gomulya & Mishina (2017) found that signals that align with stakeholder expectations are deemed most credible. In plainer terms, if you communicate in a way that fits what your audience expects from a competent insider, they’re more likely to trust what you say. Meet your audience where they are.

How do you do this? One way is through language matching. We saw earlier that using the right lingo can engage folks (and the wrong lingo can alienate them). A 2021 study on workplace communication found that using similar wording and terminology as your audience acted as an “honest signal” that encouraged collaboration. In a company setting, employees who mirrored each other’s word choices ended up interacting more and working together better. The same principle applies when we step outside academia. Listen to how your target audience talks; what phrases do they use? What tone (formal vs. casual, technical vs. narrative)? Without patronizing, sprinkle in familiar references or terms that show you understand their world. If you’re addressing farmers, for instance, mentioning a practical weather analogy or using less formal syntax can signal I respect and relate to your practical knowledge. If talking to tech folks, maybe you reference a relevant industry example or use a tech metaphor. These signals say, “I am just like you!”

Another aspect is cultural and social signaling. Audiences, especially communities or groups with strong identities, will be judging if you “get” their values and norms. Sociolinguistics calls this audience design: speakers adjust their style to match the audience and create rapport. For instance, if you're a researcher engaging with Indigenous communities, signaling respect and humility is essential. This might mean acknowledging local knowledge, starting with a sincere expression of gratitude in their language, or simply listening first. (In fact, when working with Indigenous communities, always approach interactions as a respectful guest on their lands. Recognize that communities are not a monolith. Take time to ask about local customs rather than assuming, and never interrupt or speak over an Elder.) This careful signaling shows you’re not positioning yourself as an all-knowing outsider, but as a partner who respects and values your audience’s identity and experience. These signals of belonging and respect might be as important as the content of your message in earning credibility.

Tone matters here as well. Interestingly, there’s evidence that being too formally “expert” can sometimes reduce trust with lay audiences. A marketing study found that blog readers actually trusted content more when the author used a conversational tone and showed engagement, rather than just flaunting "expert" knowledge. Readers felt more connected to a relatable voice, seeing it as more sincere. For us, this means that in many cases, it’s okay (even beneficial) to shed some of the formal academic persona. Show a bit of personality, express empathy, use “we” and “you” appropriately. These are signals that you’re trying to connect, not lecture. Of course, gauge the room if you’re at a policy briefing, you might maintain a more formal tone (that’s a form of signaling too, signaling professionalism). But even then, you can speak in plain terms and with genuine concern or enthusiasm.

Lastly, consider the medium as part of your signaling. Choosing the right communication channel demonstrates that you know how things are done in that arena. This ties to Media Richness Theory, which tells us that different media have different strengths. For instance, complex or sensitive discussions might be better done in person or via a live presentation (rich media) where you can employ body language and immediate Q&A. Quick updates or factual briefings might be fine over email or a report (leaner media). If you insist on a one-hour PowerPoint for a group that expects a two-page memo, you’re signaling you don’t understand their norms.

Align your format: maybe it’s a tweet thread or infographic for the public, an op-ed for policymakers, a slide deck with financial figures for executives. Meeting people on the platforms they use and in formats they prefer is a subtle but powerful signal that you’re adapting to them (and not expecting them to adapt to you).

In sum, building trust outside academia isn’t only about the data you bring it’s about showing you “belong” enough that they should listen. By aligning your language, tone, style, and medium with your audience’s expectations (while still being your authentic self), you lower their defenses. They stop seeing you as “that researcher who doesn’t get us” and start seeing you as an ally or at least a credible voice worth their attention. The credibility you earn through these signals then channels back into how your message is received. It’s an important step in turning an outsider’s insight into an insider’s advice.

Translating Research: Practical Examples Across Audiences

To really cement these ideas, let’s walk through a concrete example of one research finding communicated in three different formats. Imagine you’ve conducted research on a new workplace wellness program that reduces employee stress and boosts productivity. Here’s how you might translate that single piece of research for academic, business, and community audiences:

Academic Format (Journal Abstract)

In an academic journal or conference, you’d use the traditional abstract style:

Abstract (Academic) – “We conducted a 12-month randomized controlled trial (N = 250) to evaluate the effects of a workplace wellness intervention on employee stress levels and productivity metrics. The intervention group showed a statistically significant reduction in self-reported stress (mean decrease = 15%, p = 0.004) and an increase in productivity as measured by output per hour (+8%, p = 0.01), compared to controls. Effect sizes were moderate (Cohen’s d ≈ 0.5 for stress reduction). These results suggest a meaningful link between wellness programs and employee performance. Further research will examine long-term organizational impacts.”

Analysis: This academic version is heavy on methodology (RCT, control group), statistics (p-values, Cohen’s d), and cautious language (“suggest a link”). It’s written for readers who care about rigor and detail which is classic for academic peers who, as Leith et al. note, value comprehensive methods and data analysis. The tone is neutral and factual. It doesn’t spell out practical implications (that might come later in the paper’s discussion), and it certainly doesn’t try to “sell” anything. It’s all about the evidence.

Business Format (Executive Summary or Brief)

For a business audience – say you’re sending a brief to a company’s HR and executive team you’d punch up the actionable results and ROI:

Executive Summary (Business) – “Implementing a new wellness program led to a 15% decrease in employee stress and an 8% increase in productivity over one year. For our 250 employees, that productivity boost is equivalent to roughly $500,000 in added annual output. Reduced stress levels also correlate with lower absenteeism and health insurance claims. Key insight: Modest investments in employee wellness can yield a strong return on investment through improved performance and potentially lower healthcare costs. We recommend scaling this program company-wide and monitoring key performance indicators (KPIs) such as output per employee, sick days, and employee retention rates. (Data source: 12-month internal study; available on request.)

Analysis: Notice the dramatic shift in focus. The business version leads with results in plain English and highlights the financial impact (translating percentages into dollars). It answers the “so what?” clearly: better wellness = more output = more revenue, plus lower costs. The tone is still professional but slightly persuasive, using action words like “yield a strong return” and explicitly making a recommendation. It’s tailored to decision-makers’ concerns (productivity, ROI, KPIs). It also cites the credibility of the data but in an unobtrusive way (“data source: 12-month internal study”) the busy executive can trust there’s evidence without wading into it. This format aligns with what executives and managers expect: a result-oriented summary that guides decision-making. It shows you understand their goals and time constraints.

Community Format (Public Outreach Story/Visual)

For a general community audience – perhaps shared as a blog post on the company’s website or a local news story you’d make it story-driven and relatable:

Community Story (Public) – “Employees are feeling less stressed – and it’s thanks to a new wellness program. Take Jane Martinez, a customer service rep and mother of two: “I used to feel exhausted and tense by end of day,” she says. “Since the company started these 15-minute daily wellness breaks, I’m so much more relaxed. And my family notices it too.” Jane’s experience isn’t unique. In the past year, our workforce saw stress levels drop by about 15% on average, according to surveys. And here’s something surprising: productivity went up by roughly 8%, meaning folks got more done in less time. The program – which includes short guided exercises, healthy snacks, and optional group walks – didn’t just make employees happier, it also made the work better. Why it matters: Lower stress is linked to better health, so our 1,000 employees could see long term benefits like fewer sick days. And when people are less stressed, they’re more focused – which helps customers. It’s a win-win. Our leadership is now expanding the wellness initiative, with hopes of inspiring other companies in the community to prioritize employee well-being.”

Analysis: This version reads like a human-interest news piece. It starts with a compelling anecdote (Jane’s story) to hook readers emotionally. It then weaves in the key data points (15% stress drop, 8% productivity up) but without heavy numbers or any statistical jargon. The numbers are described in friendly terms (surveys, “more done in less time”). And yes, people do like numbers—just not too many at once. Writing them plainly helps reduce cognitive load, so your audience can focus on what the numbers mean, not just what they are. The explanation of the program is concrete so readers can picture it (breaks, snacks, walks). The tone directly addresses “why it matters” to readers: better health, fewer sick days, better service for customers – in other words, linking this research to everyday life outcomes and community well-being. It’s accessible and positive, avoiding any academic caveats. Visually, this could be accompanied by an infographic showing employees participating or a chart with stress down, productivity up – something simple and upbeat. It aligns with advice to emphasize real-world applications and how findings improve people’s lives. By using a story and everyday language, it meets the general public at their level of understanding and interest.

Through these adaptations, you can see how the core insight (wellness improves stress and output) is constant, but each version is tailored to resonate with its intended audience. The academic abstract builds scholarly credibility, the business brief drives home business value, and the community story builds personal connection and broader relevance. Each speaks the audience’s “dialect,” if you will. Developing this adaptability is key to making sure your brilliant work doesn’t just live and die in journals, but actually makes a difference out in the world.

Curated Tools and Resources to Sharpen Your Communication

Bridging the gap from academia to the wider world is a learnable skill. There are many resources to help researchers become better communicators. I've selected a few top tools and references that can accelerate your progress:

• Strategic Frame Analysis® (FrameWorks Institute): A research-backed approach to communication that helps you frame your message in line with public values and beliefs. FrameWorks offers guides on identifying the right narrative for your topic and audience. For example, it suggests ways to connect issues to core ideas the public needs to understand, and how to reframe conversations to counteract misconceptions. This is especially useful for nonprofit and policy communication, where choosing the right frame can mean the difference between your message resonating or falling flat.
• AAAS Communication Toolkit (American Association for the Advancement of Science): A comprehensive online toolkit designed specifically for scientists reaching out to their general audiences. The AAAS toolkit covers communication fundamentals like setting clear goals, finding the hook that makes people care about your research, and avoiding jargon. It also provides tips for engaging with specific audience groups (like journalists or policymakers) and different formats (from in-person talks to social media). Consider this a primer on science communication best practices—basically Science Communication 101 in digestible form. It even points to workshops and fellowships if you want formal training.
• Narrative and Storytelling Insights (Li et al., 2025): This recent study is a gem because it gives empirical evidence on something many of us suspect: using narratives and a personal tone can boost public engagement without undermining your authority. Li et al. found that social media posts about science that included relatable examples, step-by-step explanations, and a personal voice tended to garner more audience interest and understanding, while scientists often fear using these might make them seem “unscientific.” The takeaway resource here is learning how to incorporate narrative techniques effectively (if you are looking for a voice other than mine of course!). Consider reading summaries of this work or related guides to get ideas on structuring your message as a story, using “I” or “we” to connect, and still conveying accurate information. (One simple tip: when appropriate, share a quick story of why you got interested in this research – authenticity can be very engaging.)
• Additional Picks: Consider checking out the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science (workshops on distilling your message and improvisation techniques to connect with audiences), and the book “Made to Stick” by Chip & Dan Heath, which, while not specific to academia, brilliantly outlines what makes ideas memorable – a useful lens for shaping your research story. Also, many universities now have public engagement offices or media training resources; don’t hesitate to use them. Practice by explaining your work to friends or family members who aren’t in your field their feedback is gold for pinpointing what’s clear and what isn’t.

Each of these resources will help you build the muscle of translating complex research into compelling, audience-tailored communication. Think of it like learning a new skill – just as you once learned to run a regression or code an analysis, or compile themes from interviews, you can learn to be a powerful communicator of your science. And these tools are your training kit.

Final Words

Your work is brilliant – now make sure the world knows why it matters. The examples and strategies we’ve covered all point to a core insight: effective communication is not a nice-to-have, it’s a must-have for turning research into impact for your audience. By tailoring your message to each audience, adopting their language and perspective, and signaling that you “get” their needs, you break down the walls that often separate research from everywhere else. This isn’t about selling out or oversimplifying truths; it’s about making the truth accessible and actionable. When you do that, your research gains a second life in boardrooms, in city halls, in classrooms, and in homes where it can inform decisions and improve lives.

Importantly, these communication skills are entirely achievable. As we’ve seen, they’re built on empathy (understanding your audience’s viewpoint) and clarity (distilling what really matters). You don’t have to get it perfect every time. In fact, expect to keep refining your approach with each talk or article because it’s an iterative process. But with practice, you’ll find that you can maintain the integrity of your work and make it engaging. The first time a business leader says, “Ah, I finally see how this works – let’s use it,” or a community member says, “Thank you, now I understand what this means for us,” you’ll realize it was worth stepping out of your comfort zone.

Ready to put this into practice? Start by taking one piece of your research and outlining how you’d explain it to a non-expert friend – that’s your first mini audience-specific summary. We’ve created a simple Audience Messaging Checklist (available for download on www.mcdigitalstrategy.com) to guide you through key steps like identifying audience priorities, eliminating jargon, and highlighting relevant impacts. Give it a try. And if you’re so inclined, share your experiences or tips in the comments or via our connect page.

Let’s create a community of researchers who learn from each other in this journey of public communication. Your research can travel far beyond academia and research journals – you just have to open the door and invite people in. :)