How do you get policy makers and practitioners to pay attention to your research?

According to my experience, knowing the audience is the key step to make your research reachable and valuable. While doing research, it is for sure, you will come across the people who will be interested in your research and it becomes more important to showcase your work in front of them. I personally follow such people/groups/institutions/societies on social platform especially Linkedin and make sure to reach out to them and communicate with them to understand the today’s needs. I advertise or promote my own work in a way which reaches to concerned people directly by emails or carefully created posts. Besides, I present my work in simplest way easy to be understood by experts and non-experts.

Knowing your audience and the disseminating method is vital. You have to use different approaches for different audiences. Dissemination methods include reports, briefs, slide presentations, storytelling, pictures/photos, blog, websites, newsletters, and others.

Evidence-based research would be the key here. Rigid, jargon-filled, 'dry' methodologies will most likely not get you the the audience and the attention you deserve. Start by ideating with a real issue, and gradually build a pattern of explaining the issue through different methods. I will give you one example-when I was working on a dissertation about the "Chaebol domination in South Korean academia", I used the recent fake genius debacle, gave an example from the K-drama 'Sky Castle' and then went on to explain the 5Ws and 1H of such pattern of policies in the country. The key is figuring out the audience. Once you know it, start inculcating evidence and ideating your audiences like stakeholders. It will work.

Research impact is limited unless communicated effectively. Here are ways to boost visibility: Communication: Simplify language and offer summaries for policy makers' understanding. Relevance: Highlight issues with aligned solutions from research. Early Engagement: Collaborate from the outset to address their needs. Varied Communication: Leverage briefs, presentations, and social media for wider reach. Knowledge Translation: Provide actionable guidelines from research. Building Relationships: Network for credibility and personal connections. Tailored Outreach: Customize messages to match their interests. Testimonials and Endorsements: Seek peer support for credibility. Persistence: Follow up with post-research presentation.

First and most important is to determine who the key policy makers and practitioners are in your field of research. Understand their roles, interests, and decision-making processes. Then create concise summaries or policy briefs that distil the main findings and implications while highlighting the practical applications and benefits of research. Explain how it can contribute to better policies, more effective practices, or positive outcomes for the community. Use of simple language makes it accessible to a non-academic audience. It is also good to offer clear and actionable recommendations based on your research findings. Policy makers and practitioners are more likely to pay attention if your research provides solutions or guidance.

Animations, flow charts, AR or VR tools are also potential ways the message can be communicated. The mode of translation should be user friendly and understandable. Also, it is important that the "problem" is highlighted clearly so that the need of the research is justified. The best way would be to show the stakeholders a somewhat unconventional mode of delivery, like interactive UIs or animated flow charts. That will keep them attentive and interested in the study.

Keep it short, easy to remember, and easy to share. They don't care about all the details of the who what, where, when, and why (though have it ready for their aids), you need to bring them a specific ask and a specific reason why they are the ones to do it. What can they do, right now? Most people are task-oriented so give them a specific task to accomplish.

Your target audience defines how you pitch your idea, but it shouldn't change the overall message. It is possible to convey something in many different forms for different people. Take dinosaurs for example... If I wanted to convey that my dinosaur eats meat, I would do so to an audience og academics by crafting a well defined, scientific research paper or presentation using scientific and academic methods. But if my audience is a group of children on a trip to a museum, I would definitely not use all that complex jargon but instead use fun pictures and engaging language. This example goes for any message, de it selling a product to a board informing a television audience, or teaching kids about dinosaurs.

It is very much possible that each person in the audience is expert in atleast one field which may or may not be directly related to your research. Thus, everyone will try to relate themselves with your work in some or other manner. If they can’t relate they lose interest. This is the point where an easy to understand message will gain their interest back. For example, if you wanna tell a non-expert about drawbacks of using plastic, link the message to the plastic they are using in everyday life and tell them how it affects the environment. People want to understand the out-of-expertise research but only in easy way.

Once you define your core message, you have to diversify your research methods and approaches in a manner that would allow you to build your objectives aligned with important policy and systemic level issues that would help you to best understand the phenomena of concern.

Press Releases are an effective way. Publishers themselves have a media department and journalist services to publicise their content. Reaching out to the govt. agencies and tying up with their official gazettes and newsletters can also be a potential option to publicise the research to a wider audience. Conferences, webinars, book launches etc. are the sure shot means of gaining traction among the stakeholders.

For me, presentations at international conferences related to my expertise come out to be first choice while publications becomes second. As for the presentations, creating a presentation and delivering it in a simplest possible way can be extremely difficult task since not everyone is able to speak in public even if he/she is expert in their field. So practising public speaking becomes very crucial. On the other hand, publications make you part of history in a way that people who do not know you can still reach out to you after reading your work in future. This makes your research more approachable.

I use LinkedIn to disseminate my research. You can keep the message simple so that people understand. LinkedIn is a great platform to share, collaborate and learn from others.

I actually agree with using the presentation especially in a policy dialogue where policy makers and other stakeholders could provide valuable insights and policy connects of the study outcomes.

Conference presentations: In my view, conference presentation is one great way to get practitioners (i.e. academic and industry stakeholders) and policy-makers (such as government officials and think tanks) to share your findings with, network for future collaboration and giving you feedback to learn from their perspective.

Agree with the above ,whatever you choice, it has to be credible/professional ,well cited source (journal, webcast etc) otherwise your results could be labeled as Miss /Dis information instantly.

Re: engagement and feedback! Perhaps academia should also have the courtesy and professionalism to respond to such citing of research as the following enquiry to Whitworth @Manchester University: I have just been informed of your exhibition 'Albrecht Dürer's Material World' by a family member. Since my practice based PhD on Dürer’s MELENCOLIA I, completed in 2012, I have been able to corroborate, empirically, the constitution of his enigmatic polyhedron, a demonstration of which was included in my further solo exhibition at the Grand Theatre, Swansea, in 2014. Would you be interested in my post-PhD conclusion and research with regard to Dürer’s polyhedron? Geraint James Davies. FRSA

Network is critical. If your network is engaged with your research then it is also very likely that your research will reach out of that network. Share your results with your friends, collaborators, community etc.!

Do not let rejection of publication as an end – look at the review / critique. This is a new start/not a failure. Modify your research method /analysis etc and resubmit [to another journal , website etc]

Involve policymakers and practitioners, as well as citizens on your research. From the beginning. This model of science trying to say something when no one is listening, and being urged to say something when there's something new showing up is outdated. The type of research done with collaboration of who implements and who will receive the end impact is the type that has potential to be more tuned to feasibility and societal needs.

From my familiarity with evidence-informed policymaking, maintaining relationships with those impacted by one's work matters. Formulating ad-hoc committees in times of evidence need comprising of those who have never worked together may yield fewer results compared to if they had a good relationship. Similarly, involving users of evidence from the start of evidence production - i.e., to get their policy priorities - has been shown to increase evidence uptake. Producing evidence that policymakers do not consider urgent is most likely to suffer little attention. Lastly, communicating in the desired language of policymakers helps to increase the reach and use of evidence e.g., policymakers value economic impact studies and telling stories.

By involving the relevant stakeholders from the onset. Their invaluable contribution will not only make your research findings dissemination platforms work but also make it easier to adopt some of the solutions to solve their problems! The fact that your research strives to add to the body of knowledge and contribute to the innovative solutions to our everyday problems will make the stakeholders; both internal and external publics to help push the change idea and see to it that your research findings don't gather dust somewhere in the library or even not end up anywhere near policy makers and drivers of change agents.

In essence, policymakers act as intermediaries between groundbreaking research and its real-world impact. They bridge the gap by translating complex research findings into actionable policies that guide decision-making, foster innovation, and ensure the well-being of individuals, industries, and nations. The synergy between groundbreaking research and effective policymaking is crucial for achieving progress and addressing the challenges of our rapidly evolving world. And for me, effective communication of research ideas, and findings is key.

Consider legibility for audiences. Most practitioners won’t have the same expertise as you in your field, and will have time limitations. Heavy amounts of jargon or calculations will alienate readers who you want to internalize the key messages. Likewise, lengthy documents will be missed by busy professionals who don’t have time to go over a 100+ page document. For research to be targeted directly to the people who can action it, it needs to directly and succinctly pose the key message. Lengthy calculations and justifications can be annexes. Think like it’s a briefing note- key message to the front.