In the realm of research communication, especially within social sciences and humanities, effective communication isn’t just about transmitting information. It’s about fostering understanding, interpreting meaning, and building bridges with an audience.
Effective research communication is crucial, especially in a time where disinformation and misinformation is rampant, and trust in science and our institutions is fraught. It doesn’t help that the proverbial we as scholars often speak with authority instead of approachability.
But we have to start somewhere.
Related Post: How to Practice Reflexive Research Communication: A Practical Guide
One way to lower the wall between town and gown is through reflexive research communication. It’s a powerful practice that encourages scholars and research communicators to be self-aware, transparent, and acknowledge the limitations of their perspective. Reflexivity also helps us recognize how our bias impacts our work so we can be responsive in our communications.
What is Reflexive Research Communication?
Reflexivity involves critically examining our positionality, underlying assumptions, potential biases, and our lived experiences that inevitably shape how we approach our research. Reflexive communication is also an active process that involves shifting your communication style in real time based on an understanding of your positionality. Reflexive communication essentially helps you to take the temperature of your audience and shift accordingly in real time.
Without this reflexive lens, our communications runs the risk of being misconstrued and misinterpreted due to unacknowledged biases, blind spots, and limited perspectives. This can potentially turn off our audience, create mistrust, and silo the very people we wish to help.
Why Does Reflexivity Matter?
Researchers aren’t isolated beings. Our experiences, training, and worldviews shape our research, interpretation of findings, and how we communicate.
Reflexive communication can help us:
- Mitigate bias: Recognizing our biases allows us to take steps to minimize their influence on communication, and be better received by our audiences.
- Build trust with our audience: Transparency fosters trust. When our audience understands how our positionality impacts our perspective, they can better evaluate our research and its findings.
- Spark critical thinking: Reflexivity encourages us to critically examine our methodologies and interpretations, leading to a better understanding of our work and our intrinsic motivations.
- Enable authentic dialogue: When we’re aware of our own position and assumptions, we move beyond simply broadcasting information. Instead, we can create space for genuine conversations where both researchers and audiences contribute meaningfully.
- Allow real-time adaptation: Reflexive communicators can read their audience and adjust their approach in the moment – whether that means shifting language, incorporating relevant examples, or addressing unexpected concerns as they arise.
- Create mutual learning opportunities: Through reflexive communication, we open ourselves to learning from our audiences’ experiences and perspectives. This two-way exchange enriches both the research itself and how we share it.
Reflexivity can help strip away this idea of pure objectivity surrounding our research. Pure objectivity may be something that we all aim for, but it is an unreasonable goal. Elements of the research process might be objective, but research interpretations are based on subjective lenses we all carry. This is ok.
When we acknowledge how our personal backgrounds, theoretical commitments, academic training, and socio-political forces frame our perspective, our communication can shift. Reflexive research communication occurs when our interactions with the public, the words we use, and how we carry ourselves are adjusted in real time. It’s not about being perfect – it’s about being present, aware, and responsive to create more meaningful connections between research and society.
The Difference Between Reflection and Reflexivity
It is easy to confuse these two terms. Both involve thinking critically about ourselves, our work, and our perspective. However, there’s a key difference in their approach and outcome:
Reflection
Reflection is the internal process of examining your thoughts, feelings, and experiences after an event or project. It’s about learning from past experiences to inform and improve future practices. For example, imagine watching a recorded video of yourself giving a presentation. You can reflect on your body language, the clarity of your explanations, and areas for improvement so your message can be better received by the audience for the next presentation.
Reflexivity
Reflexivity is a more dynamic and ongoing process. It involves actively and critically examining your assumptions, biases, and positionality during the communication exchange. It’s about self-awareness in the moment, allowing you to adjust your approach as needed. For example, imagine giving a presentation live. While presenting, you might notice your audience seems confused or uncomfortable with a specific term. They start shifting in their seats and looking at each other when the term is discussed. Seeing this, you explain and rephrase the term, adding a personal narrative or comedic approach (if appropriate).
Types of Reflexivity in Research Communication
When practicing reflexivity, it’s helpful to consider three key areas that shape how we communicate our research:
Political and Economic Context
Every discipline and research field operates within its own political landscape, which may include funding pressures, power dynamics, and societal debates around the work. For example, a climate scientist might need to recognize how political debates around climate change could affect how their findings are received. A health researcher might need to consider how pharmaceutical industry funding could influence public trust in their work. Understanding these contexts helps us communicate more effectively and transparently.
Institutional Context
Our institutions – whether universities, research centers, think tanks, etc. – significantly influence how we communicate. Consider institutional policies about public engagement, communication guidelines, or unwritten rules about what’s considered “appropriate” outreach. Their support (or lack their of) may also be influential on research communication efforts. Some researchers may face restrictions on discussing certain topics, while others might be encouraged to engage widely with the public. Being aware of these institutional factors helps us navigate communication challenges more effectively.
Personal Assumptions
Perhaps most importantly, we need to examine our own assumptions about research, science, and the public. Do we unconsciously view the public as simply needing more information to understand our work? Do we assume certain backgrounds or knowledge levels in our audiences? Recognizing these assumptions helps us move beyond the deficit model toward more meaningful dialogue.
Related post: How does Knowledge Deficit Model Impact Researchers
Examples of Reflexive Research Communication In Social Science & Humanities
Here are some ways researchers can apply reflexive practices in communicating their work:
Anthropologist Studying an Indigenous Community
An anthropologist delving into an Indigenous community for an upcoming book recognizes their outsider status and research focus. Aware of potential bias, they engage in self-reflection. They examine how their own upbringing in a major metropolitan city, experience in the private education system, access to healthcare, and cultural experiences might influence their interpretations of life within the Indigenous community. This reflection also helps them identify similarities and differences in lived experiences.
Building Trust Through Reflexive Communication
Throughout the research, the anthropologist holds regular community meetings. They practice transparency by openly sharing research findings, developments, and even their own story. This personal narrative includes their interests in the community and their own background, highlighting both similarities and differences. More importantly, the research gives space to the community members to speak on their concerns and questions. This fosters a two-way dialogue where active listening to the community’s perspectives is crucial. The researcher takes notes of the conversations and recaps them into a blog post to promote transparency but also to update and inform the public who are following the project.
Benefits of Reflexivity
By embracing this reflexive approach, the anthropologist builds trust with the community, expands their research lens through the inclusion of community voices, and ultimately gains a richer understanding for their book project.
Sociologist Examining Poverty and Inequality
A sociologist studying poverty and inequality grapples with their own positionality. Recognizing their middle-class upbringing as a stark contrast to the lives of their research subjects, they initially fall prey to a surface-level assumption: low income equals unhappy childhood.
Embracing Reflexivity
However, the sociologist engages in reflexive communication. Through observations of children in the low-income community, they witness firsthand the joy and resilience that can exist despite challenging circumstances. This observation clashes with their initial, poverty-equals-unhappiness assumption, prompting them to re-examine their research tools and terminology.
Shifting the Lens
This reflexive approach leads to a crucial shift. The sociologist recognizes that joy can transcend socioeconomic boundaries. They adjust their approach, adopting more sensitive language and interaction styles as they work to implement their research-based interventions. This allows for a more nuanced understanding of the lived experiences of those experiencing poverty. When they go to write an op-ed about the experience, they include a short discussion of their assumptions and how it impacted their work. They could also center the piece to focus on the stories of the community, without their centered experience.
The Bottom Line: Reflexivity is a Conversation Starter, Not an Ending Point
To be sure, fostering reflexive research communication is challenging. We face ingrained cultural norms, institutional roadblocks, and incentive systems that discount this vital practice. Exposing our vulnerabilities and limitations will be uncomfortable. This recently happened to me after I attended my first science communication conference in Mexico, recognizing my American-centric lens and how it has impacted my perspective on research conducted outside the USA. It was shocking to the system, but now I know, and knowing is half the battle.
Related post: Unpacking Science Communication at the PCST Mexico Symposium: A Reflection on Language, Reflexivity, and Praxis
Next Steps
If you want to explore reflexive 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, 21(04).
Flores, N. (2017). Práticas reflexivas em blogs de ciência escritos por cientistas. MATRIZes, 11(3).
Jensen, E. A. (2022). Developing open, reflexive and socially responsible science communication research and practice. Journal of Science Communication, 21(4).
Salmon, R. A., Priestley, R. K., & Goven, J. (2017). The reflexive scientist: An approach to transforming public engagement. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 7.
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, 38(1).
