Communicating the intentions, methods, and findings of research projects is of critical importance to the role of the research community in society. Failure to effectively communicate with communities can lead to exploitation, breeding skepticism, fear, and public mistrust in researchers.

Ultimately, all research is underpinned by a motivation to advance broader society. However, paradoxically, as the nature of research advances and becomes more complex, it becomes more difficult to communicate, furthering the gap between researchers and the general public. As a result, the potentially beneficial findings and applications of research projects are stifled or even outright dismissed by mounting skepticism and mistrust toward the research community. What good is research which cannot be applied to improve society at large?

As a member of the interdisciplinary Brackenridge Fellowship community, I’ve been challenged to collaborate with researchers from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds and experiences. Since day one, our community has embraced the question: how can we as researchers effectively communicate the importance of our work to a general audience?

In my own experience both within the Brackenridge community and more broadly when talking about my research with others, there are a few guidelines or strategies you can follow to maximize the likelihood of having a positive interaction with someone.

For one, I always emphasize the broader significance of the project, drawing on the big-picture goals and broad body of work my research contributes to. Knowing your audience is key here. Beginning or opening with a point of shared connection serves to triangulate the conversation around a general theme or issue which can be helpful as more details about the nature of the work arise.

Then, I try to eliminate the minutiae as much as possible, emphasizing the need to know information and leaving the details open for further questions. That said, it’s important to remember that communicating in an accessible way is different than “dumbing it down.”

Lastly, as someone whose work borders on the STEM and social sciences, I always remind myself to remain confident and firm in the strength of my research methodologies and rationale. Traditional STEM disciplines are often skeptical of data collected through surveys and from the field more generally, both of which are widely used in psychology, sociology, and economics studies. Knowing this, I often remind myself to refrain from self-deprecating statements about statistical or methodological strength when speaking to members of these groups and in general.

In the future, I plan to continue studying the effects of poverty and economic inequality with the goal of informing and contributing to the creation of micro- and macro-level solutions to address those effects. These issues are inextricably tied to public policy, an area that attracts an array of diverse backgrounds and experiences. From lawmakers and administration officials to lobbyists and think thank researchers to the media and the public at large, effective communication of research is absolutely crucial to advancing my goal of reforming the way our economic system caters to the poor and underprivileged.