Youâve just had a fantastic piece of research accepted for publication. Congratulations!
When that paper is published, youâre sharing your work and results with those who have access to peer-reviewed journals or find it on a preprint server, can understand any jargon, and interpret the findings.
Say you also present your findings at a super-amazing science conference. You might write a blog post for your institutionâs website or a summary for a professional newsletter in your field and post a link to your paper on your social media platform of choice. And, because you see the value of open science, you upload your data and any code you wrote to manage and analyse the data to a publicly accessible repository (with some excellent metadata, of course).
Now, letâs say you reach out to a science writerâor a writer reaches out to youâabout your incredible study and a story appears in [insert favourite news publication here]. Or you develop a social media campaign that doesnât just link to your paper but, in plain language, explains things like why itâs important and who it's important for. Or maybe you host a talk at your local library or lead a workshop with a community group.
In all those instances, you are communicating your science (hurrah!), but there are some crucial differences.
Who weâre communicating to
In its broadest meaning, science communication is the sharing of scientific knowledge with a variety of different audiences. All the activities I mentioned above do this, but there is one crucial difference - the intended audiences.
Peer-review publications, conferences, posts on institutional websites, sharing code⊠all those things are designed to get your work out to those with certain expertise and will (hopefully) use it. Those people may work in academia, industry, government, or elsewhere. This type of communication is known as dissemination.
Having your work featured in a news article, a plain language social media campaign, talks, workshops⊠theyâre all about making your research understandable and relevant to a wider audience. Itâs about telling the story of your work in a way that connects with people who donât have a scientific background but whose lives may be impacted by your findings. That includes policymakers, teachers, journalists, and, well... most people (including other researchers). This is what we usually mean by science communication - reaching out to non-specialists.
In other words, dissemination is more about distributing the research (like the results, data, and other outputs), while science communication is about connecting society with science, making science accessible and relevant to different people.
Yeah, I know what I just wrote sounds crazyâŠdissemination is a type of science communication, but science communication is also a type of science communication đ€Ż Thatâs why some, like Sam Illingworth, prefer to use terms like âinward-facingâ for dissemination activities and âoutward-facingâ for engaging with non-specialists.
If it's published, they will come (engage with, value, and use my research)âŠwonât they?
No.
Both dissemination (inward-facing) and science communication (outward-facing) are crucial for ensuring that research not only advances knowledge but also informs decision-making, shapes public understanding, and inspires action.
Dissemination allows experts to build upon existing work, fostering innovation and collaboration, while science communication ensures that research reaches the people who can apply itâpolicymakers, educators, industry leaders, and the general public. Without dissemination, scientific progress stagnates; without communication, its benefits may never be fully realised.
Hereâs the catch. Academic culture prioritises dissemination.
Itâs how researchers get jobs, get promoted, and gain recognition that can support funding applications and be invited to collaborate. No wonder dissemination - not engaging wider audiences - is often front of mind for researchers.
It isnât uncommon to see researchers primarily list dissemination activities under science communication in funding applications, project reports, and institutional impact assessments. This can create a misleading impression that broader engagement is happening when, in reality, the focus remains on specialist audiences. As a result, genuine public-facing science communication often gets side-lined, underfunded, or undervalued, despite its critical role in increasing public understanding, informing policy, and building trust in science.
Whatâs a researcher to do?
Whether youâre dealing with a small or a large multi-national research project, if you want your work to have a real-world impact (and, more generally, have science valued by the wider society), moving beyond dissemination should be on your giant, ever-growing list of things to do (sorry).
The best time to build outward-facing science communication into your project is at the beginning. You can create a plan for the project as a whole. You can ensure you get funding for it. You can even bring in a science communicator to do the work (after all, itâs not your expertise, and youâre already up to your eyeballs). Some communicators will also help you write your funding proposal.
But if youâve already started your project, itâs never too late to ask yourself (and your project colleagues) if youâre just disseminating your research, make some changes, and/or reach out to communication professionals for some advice.
Feel free to book a 30-minute âvirtual cuppaâ chat if you want a no-pressure, no-judgment quick chat about your science communication.