Researchers often are accused of failing to make their work accessible to a general audience, and there is good reason for this accusation. The bulk of scholarly literature is, to a great extent, filled with language, concepts, and terminology that cannot be reasonably understood by a general audience, and there are implications for this– misinformation, stigma, and a population that is less educated on important topics than they could (should) be. However, it can be incredibly difficult to communicate research to a general audience. Topics such as those featured in journals are difficult to grasp, often taking years to gain a firm understanding of, and the terminology is complicated because the phenomena they describe are complicated. Describing research accessibly, but not reductively, is a challenging balance to strike.

In applying this dilemma to my own research, I recognize the importance of being able to communicate my work broadly. As such, I’d be careful to keep my audience in mind when I’m outlining the ways in which I communicate through a given medium. For example, when presenting a poster at a conference in the medical humanities, I may choose to use language and concepts that I would avoid if giving a presentation to a class with a variety of fields of study represented. The work needn’t be diluted or reduced, but taking some time to “set the stage” can go a long way. This might mean defining terms that are likely to be unfamiliar to the people you’re speaking with should be carefully defined in a way that allows the bigger picture to be reached, or leaving out slightly more nuanced details in pursuit of a clear communication of the larger themes within your work. When we keep the audience in mind, how we communicate our research effectively can change, often for the better.

With an interest in medicine, and specifically psychiatry, the need to communicate difficult concepts in accessible ways will be crucial to successful patient outcomes. It is difficult, as a person, to fight against something you don’t understand, and the role of the physician is to help bridge the gap and facilitate an understanding of the diagnosis and treatment options. To be able to articulate these ideas in ways that are meaningful to the lay person is, as I see it, a moral imperative of a practicing clinician.