I recently revisited a blog post I wrote in early 2023 on public scholarship and reflected on how much I’ve learned since then. Through deeper reading, conversations with science communications theorists, and my own practice, I’ve evolved in how I think about research communication. To start, I’ve shifted from exclusively using the term public scholarship to the more inclusive research communication. I’ve also come to see that researchers and scholars should embrace a more expansive way of thinking about their audiences. Research communication is so much more than “the general public.”
Related Post: What is Public Scholarship?
Almost half of science communication literature refers to a vague “general public” rather than specific, nuanced groups (McCarthy & Grant, 2024). I’ve been guilty of this too. It’s just easier to use “the general public” in social media posts and seems broad enough to include everyone; yet, it actually includes no one. So what does this actually mean?
Think about your own research for a moment. When you get the notification of a freshly published paper, who do you share it with first? Colleagues? Your director? Social media? And what are you saying?
I am thrilled to announce the publication of my latest article “The Life And Times of S. Carter.” Thanks to my co-authors Memphis Bleek and Beanie Sigel who worked tirelessly to make sure we crossed the finish line. Here is the link for you to read. https://open.spotify.com/album/3rWJsuu7ukoZZhp7YYkjNZ
Outside of my very niche 90s pop culture reference, this example is what I see on LinkedIn all the time. And I wonder … who is this meant for? When our research communication defaults to generic announcements like this, we miss opportunities to connect with audiences who could engage with our work.
In this post, I’ll explore how research communication extends far beyond “the general public,” examining how different groups engage with research and how being more strategic in our communication can help expand our impact.
Understanding How We Think About Research Audiences
Instead of defaulting to the nebulous “general public,” what if we thought about specific audiences – industry practitioners who could apply your findings, students in your classes learning your field, policymakers and government officials addressing related challenges, or community organizations doing the work on the ground? When we get specific about our audience, research communication becomes more manageable and meaningful.
Let’s think more systematically about research communication audiences. For example, McCarthy and Grant (2024) found that we tend to conceptualize audiences in three main ways when we communicate research:
- Who they are (Being): Their demographics, knowledge levels, values, and physical context
- What they do (Doing): How they interact with and use research
- How we frame them (Qualifiers): Whether we think of them as specific groups or fall back on vague terms like “general public”
Categorizing audiences by who they are or what they do is a bit simplistic and could potentially limit your research reach. This approach can also exclude other relevant groups you may have not previously considered. And humans are so much more than being, doing, and qualifiers.
Reflexive practices are one way to expand this conceptualization. The audience conceptualization is a start, but to reach your audience(s) requires a self-assessment and internal review of your motivations, bias, and contexts in relation to your research. The audience can’t trust a message if they can’t trust its source. And a source may not be trustworthy if they aren’t aware of how some of their social cues are off-putting or how certain terms used might feel condescending. Enter: reflexivity.
Related Post: Unleashing the Power of Research Communication Through Reflexivity
Let’s look at how audience conceptualization and reflexivity can expand our perspective of a few different groups.
Academic Colleagues
Looking at academic colleagues through an audience conceptualization can help us understand how they can help us meet our research communication goals:
- Academic colleagues bring high domain knowledge but varied disciplinary backgrounds (Being)
- Academic colleagues actively engage with research through reading, citing, and building upon work (Doing)
- They are not one homogeneous group but diverse in career stage, discipline, and interests (Qualifiers)
We share research with colleagues for many reasons – to spark interest and ideas, get citations, and build collaborations. When done strategically, communicating with academic colleagues can help:
- Build bridges between different theoretical frameworks and methodological approaches across disciplines
- Trigger opportunities for collaboration
- Advance theoretical and practical discussions
- Make research accessible to scholars in adjacent fields
- Your research gets more citations, downloads, and views
Whether you’re sharing via listservs, social media, or your college newsletter, ensure you know what you want from your academic colleagues when they see your research. Rely on messaging that is inviting (leave the ego behind) so colleagues want to engage.
Practical Example
Going back to my 90s hip-hop example, here is an example of how you could share the same research to spark a conversation and potential collaboration (this Could be a social media post):
Who was S. Carter, and what made his impact on hip-hop so profound? Through our practical analysis, we explored these questions, but we know this is just the beginning. How do you interpret his influence? What frameworks are you using to understand cultural icons’ lasting impact? Let’s push this discussion forward. https://open.spotify.com/album/3rWJsuu7ukoZZhp7YYkjNZ
Students and Emerging Scholars
Students are often overlooked in research communication. But they represent a crucial link between academia (academic research) and the real world (practical application). Through an audience conceptualization, we can see why students are a unique but very relevant audience:
- Students bring varying levels of knowledge and diverse backgrounds, often mixing academic training with practical experience (Being)
- Students actively engage with research through coursework, questions, and application to real-world problems (Doing)
- They are future practitioners, researchers, and industry leaders (Qualifiers)
Teaching/mentoring, research, and pedagogical approaches should be infused. When you effectively communicate your research to students, you:
- Connect theory and practice in a way that benefits you and your students
- Develop future advocates for your research approach
- Create opportunities for fresh perspectives and questions
- Ensure your research influence extends into future generations
- Help shape both academic and industry applications of your work
The key is communicating in a way that helps students understand not just the what of your research, but the why – why it matters, why it’s valuable, and why they should carry these insights into their future work. Effective communication with students also involves leveling the playing field in theoretical discussions. Invite them to have a conversation without condescension or a savior complex. Elevate the conversation slowly and at the pace of the students. Do not over-bear.
Practical Example
Here we go with Jay-Z again (this would be an email or prompt in your learning management system) …
Why do some artists become cultural institutions while others fade away? Our new research on S. Carter breaks down this process by looking at the impact of the album as the context of cultural leadership. As you’re listening to your favorite artists today, think about who might have this same kind of lasting impact. What makes you think so? What are the parallels? And what about the differences? Here is the paper FYI – https://open.spotify.com/album/3rWJsuu7ukoZZhp7YYkjNZ
Industry and Practitioners
Industry partners offer unique and powerful opportunities for research communication. Through an audience conceptualization, we can see how this group plays an important role in research communication:
- Industry partners blend professional expertise with practical experience, often bringing deep contextual knowledge (Being)
- Industry partners implement research findings, provide real-world feedback, and can spark new research questions (Doing)
- They range from practitioners to executives to learners, each with distinct needs and interests (Qualifiers)
Relationships with industry partners can provide mutual benefits. While you share research insights that can improve operations or spark innovation, industry partners can validate theories, identify new challenges, and help generate fresh research directions. Effective research communication with industry can help open this door.
The key is breaking down your findings in ways that show clear value: how your research can improve processes, solve problems, or drive innovation. Position the research as a benefit to them without condescension or a savior complex.
Practical Example
Here we go with Jay-Z again (this would be an email) …
Want to understand how to build artist longevity? Our research breaks down how S. Carter transformed from local artist to global brand. Fascinating insight: his strategic use of scarcity (limited features, calculated public appearances) actually increased market demand. For modern marketers, this suggests rethinking the ‘constant content’ approach. We’re happy to share the insight with you and see how it might apply to your artists! You can also see the full analysis and practical applications: https://open.spotify.com/album/3rWJsuu7ukoZZhp7YYkjNZ
Specific Public Audiences
Now we’ve made it to the illusive “general public,” or what researchers may default to when thinking about research communication. The audience conceptualization helps us understand how this approach is shortsighted:
- General public audiences are diverse in abilities, backgrounds, cultures, and needs (Being)
- Different groups engage with research in unique ways, from practical application to policy advocacy (Doing)
- The “general public” doesn’t exist – instead, there are specific communities with distinct interests and needs (Qualifiers)
The oversimplified approach of defaulting to “the general public” does not recognize how different segments of society engage with and relate to research in distinct ways. This can lead to problematic assumptions about audience knowledge and capabilities – AKA the deficit model. Treating “the general public” as a homogeneous group can also reinforce existing barriers by assuming audiences just lack the knowledge that needs to be filled (Dawson, 2018; Humm et al., 2020). You also fail to address the varying abilities of your audience, which can further alienate people who might be very interested in your work.
Related Post: How Does Knowledge Deficit Model Impact Researchers
Researchers need to be more targeted and inclusive in research communication. Instead of imagining a broad, undefined audience, think about more specific groups such as:
- Community organizations working in related areas
- Policymakers and government officials addressing related challenges
- Professional associations in the field
- Media outlets covering the space
- Specific individuals and groups directly affected or interested in the research
For effective communication, you should create meaningful dialogue that respects and recognizes diverse values, understands different decision-making processes, acknowledges uncertainty, and embraces diverse voices (Seethaler et al., 2019). Effective research communication is about creating meaningful connections between research and the specific people who are interested in it. But you have to be able to identify those specific people, learn about them, and learn how to communicate with them.
Practical Example
Ok, last Jay-Z reference … and this one is to the niche group of hip-hop heads on Reddit who host high-brow discussions on similar topics:
Title: S. Carter’s Cultural Impact
Been a long-time lurker here and the discussions always teach me something new about hip-hop. Some colleagues and I just published research examining S. Carter’s role in hip-hop’s cultural legitimization. It was a facisnating practice to dive deep into the culture of such an important artist and important time in hop-hop, but we know missed some spots. TBH – some of the analyses I’ve read on this sub go deeper than any academic paper.
What’s your take on S. Carter’s defining moments? With how different the industry is now, could we ever see another trajectory like this?
You can see the paper here if you’re intersted: https://open.spotify.com/album/3rWJsuu7ukoZZhp7YYkjNZ
Moving Forward
The future of research is about effectively sharing that knowledge with specific audiences who might learn from it, apply it, or help it evolve.
Understanding who our audiences are (Being), how they engage with research (Doing), and moving beyond vague “general public” framings (Qualifiers) helps us communicate more strategically and effectively. By understanding how wide and varied our audiences are, we can make our research communication more intentional, inclusive, and impactful.
Practicing reflexivity and asking yourself the hard questions about your research and personal point of view will do wonders for your research communication with various audiences. Whether you want to expand conversations with your colleagues or deepen conversations with your students, checking your blindspots (e.g., assumptions, bias, body language, etc) can help improve these conversations, opening the door to more meaningful engagement.
Related Post: How to Practice Reflexive Research Communication: A Practical Guide
Next Steps
Interested in learning more about your various audiences and how to reach them more effectively? Schedule a free strategy session today!
