When I stumbled across a new study about science communication in national parks, I was shook! Two worlds I care about suddenly collided. For starters, science and research communication is my jam! I have also visited roughly 16 national parks (and counting!). So, I was intrigued by Davis et al.’s (2025) study on interpretive signage in national parks. I was also curious about how this research related to my own experiences.
National parks are an American innovation that grew out of conversation and evolved into “public resources for recreation, education, scholarship, and the preservation of endangered landscapes, natural communities, and species.” Each park is unique in its own right and is an opportunity for people to enjoy the beauty, nature, culture, and history of the United States’ most treasured spaces.
National parks are also vehicles for science communication and laboratories for learning. Davis et al.’s (2025) took an opportunity to examine signage at 11 U.S. national parks to better understand its accessibility and readability. What they found is that visitors encounter science content in 79% of national park signage, most requiring 10th-12th grade reading levels—despite the average American reading at an 8th grade level. With over 400 million annual park visitors actively seeking to understand the natural world around them, this highlights a missed opportunity and a revealing case study in science communication effectiveness.
National parks also highlight something interesting about research communication. When motivated audiences are faced with scholarly expertise, success depends entirely on how that knowledge is packaged and presented. Whether you’re explaining inequality research to community leaders or discussing cultural findings with policy makers, you face the same challenge that park interpreters navigate daily. The lessons from this national parks science communication research offer practical strategies for transforming your research into accessible knowledge that connects with curious audiences.
What National Parks Teach Us about Research Communication
The million dollar question: how do you maintain scholarly rigor while remaining accessible to non-experts? The Davis et al.’s (2025) study revealed this perceived trade-off is actually a false choice that creates unnecessary barriers between expertise and understanding.
Related Post: How does Knowledge Deficit Model Impact Researchers
Analyzing 129 interpretive signs across 11 national parks, Davis et al.’s (2025) found the more science content signs contained, the harder they became to read (with most requiring 10th-12th grade reading levels). Zion National Park was one of the biggest culprits with signs packed with loads of scientific content, achieving the lowest readability scores. This creates a barrier for visitors who choose to engage with that information.
On the other hand, Great Sand Dunes National Park signs maintained above-average science content while achieving the highest readability scores. The difference was due to strategic language choices by avoiding jargon and multisyllabic academic terminology that Davis et al.’s (2025) showed “impairs people’s abilities to process scientific information.”
While the Davis et al.’s (2025) study focused on natural science interpretation, the communication challenges are similar across all research disciplines. Social scientists navigate similar communication challenges like discussing different research approaches with policymakers, partnering with communities to interpret findings together, or collaborating with practitioners to bridge theory and application. The fundamental challenge is the same across hard and soft sciences—communicating specialized knowledge effectively with non-academic audiences.
It is possible to maintain scholarly accuracy while choosing linguistic accessibility, as the Great Sand Dunes National Park shows us. I had the most questions about the formation of this park when I arrived. My question was addressed immediately with one simple sign (see above). It was clear that whoever designed the signage for this park was well aware of their audience and the knowledge they sought.
Science Communication Lessons from National Parks
Understanding why Great Sand Dunes National Park succeeded while other parks struggled requires looking beyond the words on signs to the broader communication context. Davis et al.’s (2025) show that effective science communication depends not just on what you say, but where, how, and to whom you say it. Just as different national parks serve different visitor populations with varying motivations—some seeking adventure, others seeking education—scholars must recognize that research communication happens across diverse contexts, each requiring tailored approaches.
The principles that make national park interpretation work apply directly to the daily research communication challenges scholars face. Whether you’re presenting to university administrators, collaborating with community partners, or talking about your work to curious strangers, effective communication depends on matching your communication strategy to both your context and your audience.
Context is Key
Davis et al.’s (2025) reinforced the reality that not all communication contexts are created equal. Some national parks like Grand Tetons National Park are more outdoor recreation-focused, with visitors focusing more on hiking, climbing, or adventure rather than learning. Activity-focused environments may offer fewer opportunities for detailed scientific explanation and require different communication strategies.
On the other hand, historic parks like Yellowstone and Petrified Forest have rich interpretive traditions built over decades. Their geological focus creates natural opportunities for scientific storytelling, supported by extensive infrastructure and institutional commitment to education. I knew the least about Petrified Forest National Park when I visited and spent the day exploring geological sites and signage. The park was well designed in its signage, with stops along the 28-mile drive from one entrance to the other that highlight various formations and sights.
This same principle applies to every research communication context you encounter. Presenting to university administrators about funding requires different language and focus than collaborating with industry partners on practical applications. A dinner party conversation about your work operates under different rules than mentoring students from other disciplines. The moral of the story is this: understanding your communication context matters as much as understanding your content. Success comes from matching your approach to the environment, audience expectations, and available time rather than using a one-size-fits-all explanation of your work.
Research reinforces this context-awareness principle, showing that emotional factors like feeling unwelcome or excluded play a significant role in preventing certain groups from engaging with research (Humm et al., 2020). Effective research communication requires understanding how values and decision-making processes shape how different groups engage with research, rather than simply “explaining” research to them.
Meeting Audiences Where They Are
Davis et al.’s (2025) highlighted a critical audience insight: even motivated learners struggle when communication doesn’t match their comprehension level. Park visitors actively choose to read interpretive signs because they’re curious about what they’re seeing, yet signs requiring 10th-12th grade reading levels are inaccessible for many adults. Most park signage exceeds visitors’ comfortable reading ability by several grade levels.
Communication research suggests we need to be more targeted and inclusive rather than assuming a vague “general public” (McCarthy & Grant, 2024). For example, the use of narratives can help people grasp, process, and remember information more effectively (Dahlstrom, 2014). Stories create connections with audiences, making information more appreciated and resonant.
Related Post: Want Better Research Impact? Stop Thinking About “The General Public”
Here are some strategies and guidance for audience interactions:
- Check your biases and assumptions: Examine what you’re assuming about your audience’s background knowledge and interests before interacting with them
- Choose clarity over complexity: If park signs requiring 10th-12th grade levels are too advanced for most visitors, academic jargon certainly won’t work in casual conversations
- Listen first: Understand your audience’s starting point and genuine interests before launching into explanations
- Add human relevance: Connect your research to people’s lives and experiences using metaphors, stories, and analogies that can help contextualize abstract research and make complex concepts relatable
- Use visuals strategically: Infographics can counter negative effects of necessary technical terms
Related Post: How to Practice Reflexive Research Communication: A Practical Guide
Most importantly, prepare in advance for these moments. Develop explanations of your work at different complexity levels and practice translating implications for different audiences. Effective research and science communication benefits everyone. You develop clearer thinking about your work’s broader significance while others gain access to knowledge that might inform their decisions or spark their curiosity.
The Big Picture: Applying Science Communication Principles
The Davis et al.’s (2025) study demonstrates that effective research and science communication isn’t about choosing between scientific rigor and public accessibility. It’s about strategic communication design. This lesson extends far beyond national park signage to every interaction where researchers share their expertise. Every scholar has opportunities where your expertise meets genuine public curiosity. Best to be prepared for these moments.
Effective communication does not depend on dumbing down your content, but on matching your communication approach to your context and audience. Understanding where people are starting from, what they’re genuinely curious about, and how they best process information transforms both the effectiveness of your communication and the impact of your research. The principles are clear: check your assumptions, opt for clarity over complexity, listen before explaining, and connect your work to human experience. Your research deserves an audience that can understand and act on it—and with intentional science communication practices, you can ensure it reaches them.
Next Steps
Schedule a free strategy session to discuss how to better position yourself by developing sound research and science communication strategies.
