Effective research communication requires more than just clear writing and presentation skills. It demands awareness of how our own backgrounds, assumptions, and positions influence how we share our work with others. This is where reflexive research communication becomes crucial.
At its core, reflexive research communication asks us to examine how our personal experiences, disciplinary training, institutional contexts, and broader socio-political realities shape not just what we research, but how we communicate about it. Through reflexive practices, we can build trust with our audiences, adapt our messages more effectively, and create space for meaningful dialogue. Rather than positioning ourselves as detached experts, reflexivity enables us to engage authentically with our audiences’ perspectives and concerns.
Related Post: Unleashing the Power of Research Communication Through Reflexivity
In this guide, we’ll explore practical tools and approaches to help you develop more reflexive communication practices. By understanding and applying these strategies, you can bridge the gap between simply sharing research and truly engaging with your audiences.
Getting Started with Reflexive Research Communication
An Exercise in Reflexive Research Communication
So how can we integrate reflexive practices into our research communication efforts? It begins with intentional self-examination before you begin communicating your research. Consider these questions in a practice to understand your positionality about your audience:
1. How do your identities, lived experiences, and belief systems shape your research interests and the way you communicate with your peers, the public, your students? How do you talk differently about your research to these various audiences? What does that say about your assumptions about them?
2. In what ways has your academic training and prevalent disciplinary paradigms defined both what and how you study? How did your training challenge your perspective or reinforce your preconceptions? Is your discipline inclusive of other cultures and voices outside of your dominant culture?
3. How does your institutional position and its culture shape your approach to communication? What unwritten rules or expectations about “appropriate” outreach might be influencing how you share your research? How do institutional supports or barriers affect your communication choices?
4. How might current societal debates or controversies around your research topic affect how your message is received? What competing interests or stakeholders need to be considered? How do funding sources and pressures shape what and how you communicate?
5. What assumptions do you make about your audience’s knowledge, interests, and relationship to your research? How does your use of technical language reflect assumptions about expertise and authority? What role do you envision for your audience – passive receivers or active participants?
Once we’ve evaluated some of these influences, we must directly acknowledge them to foster better research communication. As our friend G.I. Joe said, “knowing is half the battle.”
Practical Tools for Reflexive Research Communication
Now that you’ve done some work on assessing your contextual assumptions, you can move on to the specific project-based research communication activities.
Mapping Your Research Communication Landscape
Understanding the full context of your research communication efforts for a research project – including motivations, capacities, and power dynamics – is essential for reflexive practice. The Engagement Wheel, developed by Salmon & Roop (2019) and refined by Bailey et al. (2021), is a structured tool that helps map out these elements within a project and across three specific areas:
Drivers & Motivations
- What are your funding mandates and priorities?
- How might this benefit the project team or leaders?
- What are the individual and institutional motivations?
- What political drivers or “greater good” objectives exist?
People & Capacity
- Who is involved (both paid and volunteer)?
- What expertise do you have and what’s missing?
- How are people supported by leadership and funding?
- What organizational support or capacity building is needed?
Power & Funding
- Who holds decision-making power? (individuals, boards, funders, indigenous groups)
- What’s the source of funding? (public, private, institutional)
- Who else has influence over the project?
- Are there political or policy-driven elements to consider?
You can download the Engagement Wheel to complete this exercise. Take 15-20 minutes to note everything that comes to mind for each area. Don’t worry if some elements seem to fit in multiple sections. The goal is to bring attention to all the factors that might influence your communication approach for this project. The process of considering these elements, even if some don’t apply to your project, is valuable for developing a more reflexive practice.
Pre-Communication Checklist
These reflexive prompts, drawing from Mogendorff et al.’s (2014) research on expert communication and Salmon et al.’s (2017) work on scientist reflexivity, help prepare for more effective research communication:
- What personal experiences shape how I view this project?
- Who might disagree with my perspective and why?
- What assumptions am I making about my audience?
- How might my institutional position affect how others receive this project and my message?
- What voices or perspectives might I be missing?
As Mogendorff et al. (2014) demonstrate through their work with plant scientists, these questions can help researchers identify potential communication barriers and adapt their approach accordingly.
Collaborative Exercises
Drawing from Miller et al.’s (2009) research on science communication workshops and Bailey et al.’s (2022) Engagement Incubator findings, these peer-based activities can strengthen reflexive practice:
- Share communication challenges and brainstorm solutions
- Role-play different audience perspectives
- Review each other’s communication materials with fresh eyes
- Discuss institutional barriers and strategies to address them
These collaborative approaches, as demonstrated through the ESConet workshops conducted by Miller et al. (2009), help researchers develop more nuanced communication strategies through shared learning and peer feedback. Bailey et al.’s (2022) research further showed how collective reflection can surface blind spots and generate innovative solutions to communication challenges.
Reflexive Research Communication in Practice
Reflexive research communication helps us become more aware of how we may be perceived. It helps us understand more of our biases and shift our communication style for various audiences so we can connect instead of coming off as condescending. According to a 2024 Pew Research Center study, 76% of Americans are confident that scientists will act in the public’s best interests. Yet, in the same study, only 45% see researchers as good communicators. There is a clear disconnect here.
Reflexivity in research communication isn’t just about self-awareness—it’s about taking action based on that awareness. Bailey et al. (2022) demonstrate through their Engagement Incubator research that when researchers practice reflexivity, they’re better able to adapt their communication approaches in real-time based on audience needs and responses.
Above all, reflexive communication is about exchange. Effective research communication means actively listening to and co-creating knowledge with our public audiences through open dialogue—not unilaterally delivering pre-formed conclusions and assuming the receiver will accept them at face value. This shift from one-way information delivery to true dialogue ia a key transformation in how researchers can build more meaningful connections with their audiences.
Moving Forward with Reflexive Research Communication
Adopting reflexive communication practices requires effort and may initially feel uncomfortable, but the benefits are clear. By examining our assumptions, understanding our positionality, and actively engaging with different perspectives, we can transform how we share our research with various audiences.
The research-based tools and approaches outlined in this guide—from stakeholder mapping to collaborative exercises—provide practical starting points. The key point to remember is reflexivity isn’t a one-time exercise or a box to check. It’s an ongoing practice that evolves with each communication opportunity.
As researchers, we have the responsibility to share our work effectively and ethically. Reflexive communication helps us do this by fostering genuine dialogue and creating space for mutual understanding. When we acknowledge our own limitations and biases, we open the door to more meaningful connections with our audiences.
This can be an uncomfortable exercise so start small. Choose one tool or practice to experiment with in your next research communication activity. Pay attention to how it shifts your approach and impacts your audience engagement. Like any skill, reflexive communication improves with practice and intention.
Next Steps
If you want to explore reflexive research communication more and how it can help improve your research communication, schedule a free strategy session with me today.
References
Bailey, J., Salmon, R., & Horst, M. (2022). The ‘Engagement Incubator’: Using design to stimulate reflexivity about public engagement with science. Journal of Science Communication.
Bailey, J. and Salmon, R., (2023). ‘A load off your mind’ science communication laundromat. [Resource]. laundromat.makinggood.design
Salmon, R. A., Priestley, R. K., & Goven, J. (2017). The reflexive scientist: An approach to transforming public engagement. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences.
Miller, S., Fahy, D., & ESConet Team. (2009). Can science communication workshops train scientists for reflexive public engagement? The ESConet experience. Science Communication, 31(1).
Mogendorff, K., te Molder, H., van Woerkum, C., & Gremmen, B. (2014). Turning experts into self-reflexive speakers: The problematization of technical-scientific expertise relative to alternative forms of expertise. Science Communication.
