One of the key areas where we often fall short as researchers is communicating our key findings and recommendations back to the people who contributed to the project or who could benefit most from the research. With academic life frequently feeling like a constant effort to meet competing deadlines, communication beyond core deliverables is easily pushed aside. It is particularly challenging when students, postdoctoral researchers, or contracted staff move on to other projects and no longer have time to support research dissemination. In the worst-case scenario, valuable information remains buried in a folder on someone’s computer, and the research never reaches the people or animals it was meant to benefit.
When designing a communication plan, there are three key questions we need to think about:
Thinking through these questions highlights that effective communication is not about doing more, but about choosing the right approaches for the right audiences. The categories below illustrate common ways research findings can be shared and used.
Academic and scholarly outputs are one of the most common ways for researchers to share study findings. This is partly because the peer-review process provides an additional layer of scrutiny to assess research quality, but also because academic careers and funding decisions are strongly influenced by publication records. Output types can include:
Academic and scholarly outputs are particularly effective for communicating research to other researchers and professional audiences, as they use shared technical language and established reporting standards. However, they are often less accessible to the general public due to paywalls, subscription costs, and the use of specialist terminology and statistical reporting that can be difficult to interpret without subject-matter expertise.
Professional practice notes are a common way of translating research findings into practical guidance for use in real-world settings. They focus on what the evidence means for day-to-day decision-making, rather than on methodological detail, and are often produced by researchers, professional bodies, or industry groups as a bridge between research and practice. Output types can include:
Professional practice notes are particularly effective for communicating evidence to practitioners, policymakers, and service providers, as they prioritise clarity, relevance, and applicability. However, they typically involve simplification of complex findings and may not fully capture uncertainty, limitations, or areas of disagreement within the evidence base, meaning they should be interpreted alongside the underlying research where possible.
Stakeholder and community engagement outputs are used to share research findings with people who are affected by, contribute to, or can act on the results of a study. These outputs focus on accessibility, relevance, and two-way communication, and are often designed to support understanding, trust, and uptake of findings outside academic or professional settings. Output types can include:
Stakeholder and community engagement outputs are particularly effective for reaching non-technical audiences and supporting real-world impact, as they use accessible language and formats and allow for dialogue and feedback. However, they require additional time, skills, and resources to develop well, and may involve trade-offs between simplicity and precision when communicating complex or uncertain findings.
Digital and social media communication outputs are used to share research findings quickly and widely through online platforms. They prioritise reach, timeliness, and accessibility, and are often used to raise awareness of research, highlight key messages, and direct audiences to more detailed sources. Output types can include:
Digital and social media outputs are particularly effective for engaging broad and diverse audiences and increasing the visibility of research beyond traditional channels. However, they often require careful message framing to avoid oversimplification or misinterpretation, and they can be vulnerable to loss of context, misinformation, or uneven engagement depending on platform algorithms and audience dynamics.
Data and code sharing outputs are used to make research datasets, analysis code, and supporting materials openly available for verification, reuse, and extension by others. They support transparency, reproducibility, and cumulative knowledge building, and are increasingly expected by journals, funders, and institutions. Output types can include:
Data and code sharing outputs are particularly effective for supporting reproducible research and enabling secondary analyses, collaboration, and methodological learning. However, they require careful planning around data management, documentation, privacy, and licensing, and may not be appropriate for all datasets, particularly where confidentiality, cultural considerations, or commercial sensitivities apply.
Media and advocacy outputs are used to communicate research findings to the broader public and to influence public discourse, policy agendas, or decision-making. These outputs prioritise clarity, relevance, and newsworthiness, and often focus on the implications of findings rather than methodological detail. Output types can include:
Media and advocacy outputs are particularly effective for raising awareness, shaping narratives, and accelerating the uptake of research into policy or practice. However, they involve a high risk of oversimplification or misrepresentation if messages are not carefully framed, and researchers often have limited control over how findings are interpreted or presented once they enter the media cycle.
Teaching and training outputs are used to embed research findings into education, workforce development, and capacity building. These outputs focus on supporting learning, skill development, and application of evidence in practice, and are often designed for students, professionals, or specific workforce groups. Output types can include:
Teaching and training outputs are particularly effective for building long-term capability and supporting sustained changes in practice, as they allow evidence to be explored in depth and applied through learning activities. However, they can be resource-intensive to develop and maintain, and require ongoing updates to remain current as evidence, standards, or technologies evolve.
Most research projects will not use every communication pathway described on this page. Instead, effective dissemination involves identifying priority audiences early and deliberately selecting a small number of output types that are best suited to reaching them and supporting real-world impact. Successful communication is driven by strategic choices about audience, format, and timing, rather than the sheer volume of outputs produced.
| Audience | Primary purpose | Best-suited communication channels |
|---|---|---|
| Researchers and academics | Share methods, results, and theoretical contributions | Peer-reviewed journals, preprints, conference presentations |
| Practitioners and professionals | Support evidence-based decision-making in practice | Practice notes, guidelines, CPD resources, training materials |
| Policymakers and regulators | Inform policy development and regulatory decisions | Policy briefs, technical advisories, targeted briefings |
| Stakeholders and affected communities | Build understanding, trust, and two-way engagement | Plain-language summaries, workshops, webinars, co-design sessions |
| General public | Raise awareness and communicate relevance | Media articles, blogs, social media, infographics, short videos |
| Students and trainees | Build knowledge and applied skills | Teaching materials, case studies, courses, workshops |
| Researchers and data users | Enable transparency, reuse, and collaboration | Open datasets, code repositories, analysis notebooks |
Phase 5. Analysis
Advancing Animal Care through Shared Learning