During the PCST symposium in Zacatecas in early 2024, I found myself thinking about how researchers and scientists struggle with communicating research. How inaccessible the science communication research was. But I also realized how little attention was paid to social sciences and humanities scholars and research. While everyone agreed that science communication is crucial, especially in today’s complex landscape, the current conversations around research communication for social sciences and humanities scholars was lacking.
Related Post: Unpacking Science Communication at the PCST Mexico Symposium: A Reflection on Language, Reflexivity, and Praxis
Research confirms what many of us have observed. Despite the everyday relevance of social sciences and humanities research, there’s limited communication training specifically designed for these researchers (Cassidy, 2021; Lewis et al., 2023). Training programs often try to fit social science and humanities scholars into frameworks designed for the hard sciences. As both a former social scientist and current research communications trainer, I’ve seen firsthand why this needs to change.
In this post, I’ll discuss some of the shortcomings around communication training for social sciences and humanities scholars and talk about how coaching can meet those shortcomings.
Related Post: Unlocking Impact: Public Engagement Examples for Social Scientists and Humanities Scholars
The Current State of Communicating Research in Social Sciences and Humanities
Unlike hard sciences, which typically share breaking discoveries, social sciences and humanities scholars are often sought out as experts to provide context and analysis for current events (Cassidy, 2021; Lewis et al., 2023). This different role requires a different approach to communication training and support – one that acknowledges the ongoing, dialogic nature of social sciences and humanities research communication (Burchell et al., 2017; Wilkinson & Sardo, 2011).
I’ve seen in my work and in the literature how science communication training often falls short for social science and humanities scholars:
Skills Without Strategy
Training programs often emphasize skill development rather than helping researchers develop strategic objectives and goals (Besley, 2020; Besley et al., 2016, 2021). And training programs often fail to help researchers articulate broader communication objectives beyond enhancing knowledge (Besley et al., 2016; Featherstone & Owen, 2020). I see this play out constantly with my clients who often struggle with the bigger picture. One client had mastered social media but was spread thin on almost all platforms and couldn’t articulate why they were posting or what impact they hoped to achieve.
The Audience Blind Spot
Training often focuses on knowledge transmission without considering how people learn or distinguishing between different engagement contexts (Baram-Tsabari & Lewenstein, 2017; Besley & Tanner, 2011; Besley et al., 2015; Stylinski et al., 2017). This approach further contributes to the knowledge deficit model (Copple et al., 2020), where we assume simply providing information leads to understanding and acceptance. At PCST, this came up repeatedly in discussions about science communication – we’re still stuck in a one-way communication model, giving our audience very little credit.
Related Post: How does Knowledge Deficit Model Impact Researchers
The Participation Paradox
I thought this was fascinating and very telling: while researchers generally view training positively, participation in both training and communicating research remains pretty low (Besley et al., 2015; Royal Society, 2006). I see this time and time again with my clients – the disconnect between intention and action. The barriers aren’t just about time or resources; they’re often about confidence and institutional support.
The Training-Reality Disconnect
Studies have revealed a concerning disconnect between trainers and scholars. Science communication trainers often view their programs more favorably and useful than the trainees (Fähnrich & Wilkinson et al., 2021; Featherstone & Owen, 2020; Silva & Bultitude, 2009). I’ve experienced this from both sides – as a trainer, it’s easy to get excited about teaching technical skills and imparting wisdom, but my clients often need so much more. One client wanted to make a bigger impact through meaningful community development and sharing instead of a media-focused communication strategy.
Related Post: The Benefits of Public Engagement for Social Scientists and Humanities Scholars
Research communication training should include structures that encourages communication and lower barriers, making it more accessible to busy researchers of varying capabilities (Stylinski et al., 2017). This is why coaching offers a more effective approach. Instead of one-size-fits-all training, coaching can provide the personalized support that helps scholars develop not just skills, but confidence, strategy, and a clear sense of purpose in their research communication.
The Case for Coaching Social Sciences and Humanities Scholars in Communicating Research
Research communication training positively influences researchers’ willingness to engage with the public, developing self-efficacy, capabilities, and intrinsic motivation (Besley et al., 2018; Copple et al., 2020). Through my work with social science and humanities scholars, I’ve seen how personalized support can transform their approach to research communication.
Why Coaching Makes Sense for Communicating Research
The beauty of coaching lies in its learner-centered approach. Unlike traditional training that often prioritizes media-focused skills (Besley et al., 2016), coaching puts the researcher at the heart of the process (Featherstone & Owen, 2020). This shift in focus is crucial. While working with a social scientist recently, we spent no time on “how to write a press release” and more time exploring how they could directly reach their audience in sharing a newly published white paper. The researcher is the core of the research and communicating research, so it makes sense to focus helping them where and how they need it.
Research hasn’t explicitly called for coaching in science communication, but the evidence points in that direction. Studies suggest we need training that:
- Encourages reflection on research and research communication practices (Salmon et al., 2015)
- Considers each researcher’s unique institutional, cultural, professional, and personal context (Bailey et al., 2021)
- Builds on existing communication skills (Besley et al., 2016)
- Allows for experimentation with different approaches (Stylinski et al., 2017)
Learning from Executive Coaching
The business world offers compelling evidence for coaching’s effectiveness. Executive coaching research shows impressive results in areas that directly parallel our needs in communicating research (Athanasopoulou & Dopson, 2018; Jones et al., 2016):
- Increased self-confidence and well-being
- Enhanced technical and communication skills
- Better goal-setting and achievement
- Improved productivity and planning
These outcomes address many of the barriers scholars face in public engagement (Featherstone & Owen, 2020; Salmon et al., 2015). One element of my coaching is working through time management and workflow improvements to more effectively and efficiently communicate research without feeling overwhelmed. Coupled with developing confidence and positive audience perceptions, coaching can maximize impact on future engagement (Copple et al., 2020).
Coaching in Practice: Early Success Stories
We’re already seeing elements of coaching work in science communication. Take the science communications ambassador program studied by Nadkarni et al. (2019), which helped scientists develop their “impact identity” (i.e., integrating their research, personal interests, and experiences to create meaningful public engagement; Risien & Storksdieck, 2018). Or the Portal to the Public program (Stylinski et al., 2017), which paired scientists with communication professionals who acted more as coaches than trainers.
These studies reported scientists experienced:
- Improved communication skills
- Broader perspectives on public engagement
- Challenged assumptions about their audience
- Career advancement
- Greater satisfaction and enjoyment in their communication work
This is exactly what I’ve observed in my practice. When social science and humanities scholars receive personalized coaching support, they don’t just become better communicators – they become more confident, strategic, and fulfilled in their research communication work.
Conclusion
This work is the crux of my British Academy fellowship application. I’m really excited to develop this coaching framework. The evidence suggests we’re on the right track – we need an approach that acknowledges the distinctive nature of social science and humanities research and provides scholars with tools and strategies that align with their unique communication needs.
Related Post: International Fellowships for Independent Scholars: Racing to the British Academy Deadline
While traditional science communication training serves an important purpose, social science and humanities scholars deserve support that recognizes their specific role in public discourse and empowers them to make a meaningful impact through their research communication.
Next Steps
Interested in exploring how coaching could support your research communication goals?
Let’s chat!
Book a free strategy session to discuss how we can work together to develop a communication approach that aligns with your research, your audience, and your impact goals.
