As teased in one of my previous blog posts, I wanted to give more detailed insights into dissemination practices. I do believe that this will help me understand the scientists side of things more, as I was previously more focused on developing content for the general public. And while that goal remains the same, I believe that it is crucial to understand how scientists try to communicate their topics and to find a way that bridges the gap between the scientific and non-scientific community.
A 2020 article by Tony Ross-Hellauer et. al. published ten simple rules for innovative dissemination of research, which will now briefly be explained. These ten recommendations were compiled via multidimensional research activities and have the goal to provide primarily researchers with an entry point to more innovative dissemination practices, allowing them to choose methods and tools according to their audience, requirements and skills.
Rule 1: Get the basics right
In order to be able to communicate effectively, it is necessary to have clarity in some aspects: one needs to define objectives, define the potential target group(s), messages and methods of engagement and communication. Also, a dissemination plan should be created to strategically outline the project goals.
With defining objectives, the authors essentially mean the purpose and goal of the dissemination – what is a researchers motivation, what should be achieved with it? This step is essential for planning further activities.
This step goes hand in hand with defining the target audience and who to reach with ones research – having clarity in who the stakeholders are will also determine what they need in order to receive the information. The same goes for developing the key messages, as these need to be planned accordingly in order to be communicated to a specific group.
Rule 2: Keep the right profile
The authors suggest establishing a unique identity, both online and offline, for a research project or individual researchers – be it through the usage of websites, personal social media accounts, academic social networks or other, as this will help in increasing visibility. Creating a brand and having a visual identity not only can have an impact in the public’s perception and accumulating esteem within the scientific community.
Rule 3: Encourage participation
Inviting research audiences to engage and collaborate in order to create a collaborative, collective endeavor is suggested. Participatory approaches can be anything from games through including the public in the research process.
Also, frequent and early dissemination, i.e. by updating followers on social media, publishing progress blogs or tell the public about early findings can in turn mean early feedback. So, to sum up, including not only researchers but also citizens and other audiences outside of the academic circle can increase a project’s societal impact.
Rule 4: Open science for impact
Open science is definitely as knowledge that is share and developed via collaborative networks in a transparent and accessible way and is rooted in the principles of transparency and equitable participation. Practices include, for example, open access to publications, open source software, open research data, citizen science, or open educational sources. Open Access publications can have a larger impact as they are widely available and can be reused and explored further. Therefore, dissemination can be considered a core element of the open science approach.
Rule 5: Remix traditional outputs
Research articles or books can be consider traditional research outputs. The authors suggest that innovative dissemination practices should complement these traditional tools in order to boost impact. Publishing press releases, blog posts or nonspecialist summaries alongside the traditional outlets can be a great way of reaching more people with one’s research and which also might get picked up by media outlets who are often interested in science-related stories.
Rule 6: Go live
There are multiple ways of translating dissemination into in-person activities outside of specialized conferences. Science slams, TED talks science shops or science festivals offer different ways of interacting with various audiences. Reaching out to key stakeholders is also encouraged, as policy-makers or thought leaders have the power of making change happen and personal conversation might be a powerful tool to support collected evidence on a topic.
Rule 7: Think visual
Currently, dissemination is still largely done via writing or spoken word. Including visual elements can be a strong tool in helping the audience understand and interpret research. The most logical approach is, of course data visualization, a practice that has been used for a long time. However, the means of visualizing data have changed throughout time and offer some new possibilities such as smart graphs and infographics. Science comics, video abstractor even artistic interpretations are ways of depicting science in a way that might just be memorable – and therefore stronger in impact.
Rule 8: Respect diversity
Diversity within the academic discourse has always included discussions about cultural backgrounds, gender, ethnicities, ideologies, digital literacy and economic diversity. It is important to not only raise awareness about diversity issues but to also grant higher visibility to underrepresented minorities in research. And in terms of communication, there should always be the consideration of how to appropriately and respectfully reach the right audience – because research should be reaching everyone that it might affect. Helpful tools to achieve this is defining a code of conduct or contributing guidelines.
Rule 9: Find the right tools
Contrary to traditional dissemination methods, innovative dissemination often requires a different skillset and other resources. A Hub created by OpenUP offers a catalogue of innovative dissemination services researchers can use and list resources that range from data visualization, outreach and publishing to event organization, archives, and crowdsourcing opportunities.
There are other initiatives like this in order to support researchers in their dissemination and widen public scientific engagement.
Rule 10: Evaluate, evaluate, evaluate.
Dissemination activities should constantly be monitored and evaluated in regards to their effectiveness and impact. Analyzing why or why not certain tactics do or do not work is crucial in order to identify effective practices and allow researchers to be strategic in using them.
Evaluation should be based on a combination of qualitative and quantitative indicators and could include interviews, questionnaires, or observations for measuring impact.
All these dissemination guidelines made me realize that I, myself, might need to re-evaluate my research approach. I need to decide where I want to put my focus in my further research – to support the scientists in their science communication skills and develop formats that might be applicable for them or to independently find ways of communicating science to the non-scientific community outside of dissemination goals.
This blogpost is majorly based on this PLOS article:
Ross-Hellauer, Tony, Jonathan P. Tennant, Viltė Banelytė, Edit Gorogh, Daniela Luzi, Peter Kraker, Lucio Pisacane, Roberta Ruggieri, Electra Sifacaki, and Michela Vignoli. “Ten Simple Rules for Innovative Dissemination of Research.” PLOS Computational Biology 16, no. 4 (2020): e1007704. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007704.
