in a research proposal the time bound dissemination

Join thousands of product people at Insight Out Conf on April 11. Register free.

Insights hub solutions

Analyze data

Uncover deep customer insights with fast, powerful features, store insights, curate and manage insights in one searchable platform, scale research, unlock the potential of customer insights at enterprise scale.

Featured reads

Inspiration

Three things to look forward to at Insight Out

Tips and tricks

Make magic with your customer data in Dovetail

Four ways Dovetail helps Product Managers master continuous product discovery

Events and videos

© Dovetail Research Pty. Ltd.

What you need to know about research dissemination

Last updated

5 March 2024

Reviewed by

In this article, we'll tell you what you need to know about research dissemination.

• Understanding research dissemination

Research that never gets shared has limited benefits. Research dissemination involves sharing research findings with the relevant audiences so the research’s impact and utility can reach its full potential.

When done effectively, dissemination gets the research into the hands of those it can most positively impact. This may include:

Politicians

Industry professionals

The general public

What it takes to effectively disseminate research will depend greatly on the audience the research is intended for. When planning for research dissemination, it pays to understand some guiding principles and best practices so the right audience can be targeted in the most effective way.

• Core principles of effective dissemination

Effective dissemination of research findings requires careful planning. Before planning can begin, researchers must think about the core principles of research dissemination and how their research and its goals fit into those constructs.

Research dissemination principles can best be described using the 3 Ps of research dissemination.

This pillar of research dissemination is about clarifying the objective. What is the goal of disseminating the information? Is the research meant to:

Persuade policymakers?

Influence public opinion?

Support strategic business decisions?

Contribute to academic discourse? 

Knowing the purpose of sharing the information makes it easy to accurately target it and align the language used with the target audience.

The process includes the methods that will be used and the steps taken when it comes time to disseminate the findings. This includes the channels by which the information will be shared, the format it will be shared in, and the timing of the dissemination.

By planning out the process and taking the time to understand the process, researchers will be better prepared and more flexible should changes arise.

The target audience is whom the research is aimed at. Because different audiences require different approaches and language styles, identifying the correct audience is a huge factor in the successful dissemination of findings.

By tailoring the research dissemination to the needs and preferences of a specific audience, researchers increase the chances of the information being received, understood, and used.

• Types of research dissemination

There are many options for researchers to get their findings out to the world. The type of desired dissemination plays a big role in choosing the medium and the tone to take when sharing the information.

Some common types include:

Academic dissemination: Sharing research findings in academic journals, which typically involves a peer-review process.

Policy-oriented dissemination: Creating documents that summarize research findings in a way that's understandable to policymakers.

Public dissemination: Using television and other media outlets to communicate research findings to the public.

Educational dissemination: Developing curricula for education settings that incorporate research findings.

Digital and online dissemination: Using digital platforms to present research findings to a global audience.

Strategic business presentation: Creating a presentation for a business group to use research insights to shape business strategy

• Major components of information dissemination

While the three Ps provide a convenient overview of what needs to be considered when planning research dissemination, they are not a complete picture.

Here’s a more comprehensive list of what goes into the dissemination of research results:

Audience analysis: Identifying the target audience and researching their needs, preferences, and knowledge level so content can be tailored to them.

Content development: Creating the content in a way that accurately reflects the findings and presents them in a way that is relevant to the target audience.

Channel selection: Choosing the channel or channels through which the research will be disseminated and ensuring they align with the preferences and needs of the target audience.

Timing and scheduling: Evaluating factors such as current events, publication schedules, and project milestones to develop a timeline for the dissemination of the findings.

Resource allocation: With the basics mapped out, financial, human, and technological resources can be set aside for the project to facilitate the dissemination process.

Impact assessment and feedback: During the dissemination, methods should be in place to measure how successful the strategy has been in disseminating the information.

Ethical considerations and compliance: Research findings often include sensitive or confidential information. Any legal and ethical guidelines should be followed.

• Crafting a dissemination blueprint

With the three Ps providing a foundation and the components outlined above giving structure to the dissemination, researchers can then dive deeper into the important steps in crafting an impactful and informative presentation.

Let’s take a look at the core steps.

1. Identify your audience

To identify the right audience for research dissemination, researchers must gather as much detail as possible about the different target audience segments.

By gathering detailed information about the preferences, personalities, and information-consumption habits of the target audience, researchers can craft messages that resonate effectively.

As a simple example, academic findings might be highly detailed for scholarly journals and simplified for the general public. Further refinements can be made based on the cultural, educational, and professional background of the target audience.

2. Create the content

Creating compelling content is at the heart of effective research dissemination. Researchers must distill complex findings into a format that's engaging and easy to understand. In addition to the format of the presentation and the language used, content includes the visual or interactive elements that will make up the supporting materials.

Depending on the target audience, this may include complex technical jargon and charts or a more narrative approach with approachable infographics. For non-specialist audiences, the challenge is to provide the required information in a way that's engaging for the layperson.

3. Take a strategic approach to dissemination

There's no single best solution for all research dissemination needs. What’s more, technology and how target audiences interact with it is constantly changing. Developing a strategic approach to sharing research findings requires exploring the various methods and channels that align with the audience's preferences.

Each channel has a unique reach and impact, and a particular set of best practices to get the most out of it. Researchers looking to have the biggest impact should carefully weigh up the strengths and weaknesses of the channels they've decided upon and craft a strategy that best uses that knowledge.

4. Manage the timeline and resources

Time constraints are an inevitable part of research dissemination. Deadlines for publications can be months apart, conferences may only happen once a year, etc. Any avenue used to disseminate the research must be carefully planned around to avoid missed opportunities.

In addition to properly planning and allocating time, there are other resources to consider. The appropriate number of people must be assigned to work on the project, and they must be given adequate financial and technological resources. To best manage these resources, regular reviews and adjustments should be made.

• Tailoring communication of research findings

We’ve already mentioned the importance of tailoring a message to a specific audience. Here are some examples of how to reach some of the most common target audiences of research dissemination.

Making formal presentations

Content should always be professional, well-structured, and supported by data and visuals when making formal presentations. The depth of information provided should match the expertise of the audience, explaining key findings and implications in a way they'll understand. To be persuasive, a clear narrative and confident delivery are required.

Communication with stakeholders

Stakeholders often don't have the same level of expertise that more direct peers do. The content should strike a balance between providing technical accuracy and being accessible enough for everyone. Time should be taken to understand the interests and concerns of the stakeholders and align the message accordingly.

Engaging with the public

Members of the public will have the lowest level of expertise. Not everyone in the public will have a technical enough background to understand the finer points of your message. Try to minimize confusion by using relatable examples and avoiding any jargon. Visual aids are important, as they can help the audience to better understand a topic.

• 10 commandments for impactful research dissemination

In addition to the details above, there are a few tips that researchers can keep in mind to boost the effectiveness of dissemination:

Master the three Ps to ensure clarity, focus, and coherence in your presentation.

Establish and maintain a public profile for all the researchers involved.

When possible, encourage active participation and feedback from the audience.

Use real-time platforms to enable communication and feedback from viewers.

Leverage open-access platforms to reach as many people as possible.

Make use of visual aids and infographics to share information effectively.

Take into account the cultural diversity of your audience.

Rather than considering only one dissemination medium, consider the best tool for a particular job, given the audience and research to be delivered.

Continually assess and refine your dissemination strategies as you gain more experience.

Get started today

Go from raw data to valuable insights with a flexible research platform

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 21 December 2023

Last updated: 16 December 2023

Last updated: 6 October 2023

Last updated: 17 February 2024

Last updated: 5 March 2024

Last updated: 19 November 2023

Last updated: 15 February 2024

Last updated: 11 March 2024

Last updated: 12 December 2023

Last updated: 6 March 2024

Last updated: 10 April 2023

Last updated: 20 December 2023

Latest articles

Related topics, log in or sign up.

Get started for free

Internet Explorer is no longer supported by Microsoft. To browse the NIHR site please use a modern, secure browser like Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, or Microsoft Edge.

How to disseminate your research

Published: 01 January 2019

Version: Version 1.0 - January 2019

This guide is for researchers who are applying for funding or have research in progress. It is designed to help you to plan your dissemination and give your research every chance of being utilised.

What does NIHR mean by dissemination?

Effective dissemination is simply about getting the findings of your research to the people who can make use of them, to maximise the benefit of the research without delay.

Research is of no use unless it gets to the people who need to use it

Professor Chris Whitty, Chief Scientific Adviser for the Department of Health

Principles of good dissemination

Stakeholder engagement: Work out who your primary audience is; engage with them early and keep in touch throughout the project, ideally involving them from the planning of the study to the dissemination of findings. This should create ‘pull’ for your research i.e. a waiting audience for your outputs. You may also have secondary audiences and others who emerge during the study, to consider and engage.

Format: Produce targeted outputs that are in an appropriate format for the user. Consider a range of tailored outputs for decision makers, patients, researchers, clinicians, and the public at national, regional, and/or local levels as appropriate. Use plain English which is accessible to all audiences.

Utilise opportunities: Build partnerships with established networks; use existing conferences and events to exchange knowledge and raise awareness of your work.

Context: Understand the service context of your research, and get influential opinion leaders on board to act as champions. Timing: Dissemination should not be limited to the end of a study. Consider whether any findings can be shared earlier

Remember to contact your funding programme for guidance on reporting outputs .

Your dissemination plan: things to consider

What do you want to achieve, for example, raise awareness and understanding, or change practice? How will you know if you are successful and made an impact? Be realistic and pragmatic. 

Identify your audience(s) so that you know who you will need to influence to maximise the uptake of your research e.g. commissioners, patients, clinicians and charities. Think who might benefit from using your findings. Understand how and where your audience looks for/receives information. Gain an insight into what motivates your audience and the barriers they may face.

Remember to feedback study findings to participants, such as patients and clinicians; they may wish to also participate in the dissemination of the research and can provide a powerful voice.

When will dissemination activity occur? Identify and plan critical time points, consider external influences, and utilise existing opportunities, such as upcoming conferences. Build momentum throughout the entire project life-cycle; for example, consider timings for sharing findings.

Think about the expertise you have in your team and whether you need additional help with dissemination. Consider whether your dissemination plan would benefit from liaising with others, for example, NIHR Communications team, your institution’s press office, PPI members. What funds will you need to deliver your planned dissemination activity? Include this in your application (or talk to your funding programme).

Partners / Influencers: think about who you will engage with to amplify your message. Involve stakeholders in research planning from an early stage to ensure that the evidence produced is grounded, relevant, accessible and useful.

Messaging: consider the main message of your research findings. How can you frame this so it will resonate with your target audience? Use the right language and focus on the possible impact of your research on their practice or daily life.

Channels: use the most effective ways to communicate your message to your target audience(s) e.g. social media, websites, conferences, traditional media, journals. Identify and connect with influencers in your audience who can champion your findings.

Coverage and frequency: how many people are you trying to reach? How often do you want to communicate with them to achieve the required impact?

Potential risks and sensitivities: be aware of the relevant current cultural and political climate. Consider how your dissemination might be perceived by different groups.

Think about what the risks are to your dissemination plan e.g. intellectual property issues. Contact your funding programme for advice.

More advice on dissemination

We want to ensure that the research we fund has the maximum benefit for patients, the public and the NHS. Generating meaningful research impact requires engaging with the right people from the very beginning of planning your research idea.

More advice from the NIHR on knowledge mobilisation and dissemination .

• Start staff web
• Support & services
• External funding
• Proposal writing advice
• Communication and Dissemination

Proposal writing advice: Communication and Dissemination

Communication and dissemination are critical to ensure that your research reaches the right audience and makes an impact. Independent of whether you are focused on fundamental research questions or work closely with stakeholders, you need a thorough plan to successfully spread the results of your research to the appropriate scientific community, the stakeholder groups who will benefit from them, or the wider society.

Since communication, dissemination and impact go hand in hand, many funders require that you include an initial communication and dissemination plan at the proposal stage. Hence, to be successful, you must show that you have not only a convincing plan for your research, but also an effective strategy for communicating and disseminating the new knowledge and achieving impact. Indeed, some funders may also request that you communicate and engage with your envisioned target groups during the design of your project plan. This ensures that the research matches their real-world challenges and needs - a concept known as co-creation of research.

The difference between communication and dissemination

Some funders make a distinction between the terms communication and dissemination. Where they do, it is important not to use them interchangeably and to have an understanding of the differences.

Communication

• Promotes the project results and the project itself
• Provides targeted information to multiple audiences, including those beyond the project’s own community, such as the media and the public
• Includes both one-way and two-way exchanges
• Lasts for the duration of the project

Dissemination

• Shares project results
• Targets potential users of research results (e.g. research community, policymakers, industry)
• One-way exchanges
• Takes place during the project and afterwards

To keep things simple, for the remainder of this guide, we will only use the term communication - but you should understand that our advice is relevant to both communication and dissemination plans.

Making a plan

When building an effective and convincing communication and dissemination plan, there are several key aspects that you need to consider. These include defining WHY you need to communicate, to WHOM, WHEN, and HOW. In addition, you need to present an activity plan that outlines WHAT you will do- the major activities that you will carry out to ensure that the results and other information about your research project will reach the appropriate audience and realise the anticipated impact.

1. Background and aim

Before starting to plan your activities, you need to define the aim of the communication and dissemination - why you need to communicate and what you aim to achieve with the activities. Sometimes you may simply wish to spread information and new knowledge to relevant target groups, but in many cases, communication strives to affect the target groups in various ways, maybe by altering attitudes, behaviours or evoking emotions. For a funder to understand what your communication and dissemination will support, you often also have to provide background information on why an altered attitude or behaviour in a particular group would be favourable – for example to promote the sustainable development goals and mitigate climate change.

2. Target groups

After defining your aims, you need to pinpoint your key target group or groups. Depending on the focus of your research project, different groups will, or will not, be interested in or affected by your research. Hence, before planning any communication/dissemination activities, you have to consider who may be interested in, affected by, or benefit from your research, and thereby determine who you need to target. Once you have identified a target group, it is important to consider what kind of information this group may be interested in and educate yourself about how this group prefers to interact with researchers. To ensure efficient communication, it’s often wise to interact with your intended target group and co-create activities that are suitable for achieving the project’s communication/dissemination aims. It is crucial to be aware that different target groups may be interested in different aspects of your research and that they also may prefer different channels for communication.

Remember that you may not be able to reach out to everyone! Make sure your plan is realistic in relation to the size of your project and the resources that are available. However, in most cases it’s a good idea to plan for one or a few activities that are targeting a wider audience or the general public.

3. Key messages

When reaching out to a specific target group, you should focus on delivering the information that is relevant for that particular audience. Even if many aspects of your research are interesting, your main message may be lost if you overwhelm the listener with too much information. Therefore, it is often wise to spend some time formulating key messages for each target audience, focusing on the main points and narrowing down your messages to be as clear, strong and concise as possible. Use visuals when you communicate – figures, pictures, graphs, animations, videos – a visual can say more than a thousand words!

4. Channels

• Printed publications
• Conferences/meetings
• Stakeholder events
• TV/radio/video
• Newsletters
• Social media
• Personal communication
• Events for the public
• Teaching activities

5. Activity planning

Once you have defined your aims, target groups, key messages and communication/dissemination channels, you are ready to make an activity plan for how to communicate information about your research project or disseminate results. In an activity plan, you outline all activities in a readily accessible way, depicting WHAT you will do (activity), WHY (aim), for WHOM (target group), HOW (channel), and WHEN (timing). If possible, also include who will be responsible for ensuring that the activity is realised and how you will measure or evaluate the activity (see below).

A clear and concise activity plan will provide both you and the funder with a good overview of the activities, and simultaneously facilitate follow-up and evaluation of the communication.

6. Evaluation

A critical part of a communication and dissemination plan, which is often overlooked, is an appropriate follow-up of the activities. If you do not properly evaluate the outcome of your activities, you cannot know whether you have successfully achieved your aims. Therefore, already at the proposal stage, it is advantageous to define how you intend to evaluate your communication and dissemination activities, most commonly through the use of key performance indicators or KPIs. For conferences/meetings/events you may wish to monitor the number of participants, for websites and social media, the number of visits may be relevant, whereas for other activities a survey or discussions in focus groups may be preferable. Providing information about your strategy to evaluate your activities will not only show the funder that you take communication and dissemination seriously, but will also help you to continuously improve the measures you take.

7. Other aspects to consider

When planning the communication and dissemination of project-related information and results, you may also need to consider a few other aspects, including:

• Communication and dissemination activities are usually not without costs, so plan well, make a budget, and adjust your activities accordingly.
• Consider if your planned activities depend on the involvement of other people or if you need access to special equipment.
• Consider if your research is controversial and may evoke negative responses, and thus if you need to include your communication and dissemination activities in your project’s risk management plan.

Finally, when designing a communication and dissemination plan for your research project, remember to be honest and realistic, and adjust the activities according to your needs, experiences and available resources. Communication and dissemination takes time, so prioritise, be strategic, and be selective. Furthermore, if you are inexperienced, do not hesitate to ask for help and advice - from senior peers, professional communicators or your friends!

Useful links

Communicating your project - Horizon 2020 Online Manual

Dissemination and exploitation of project results - Horizon 2020 Online Manual

Communicating EU research and innovation: guidance for project participants

Quick guide and tools for Communication, Dissemination and Exploitation in Horizon 2020

Making the Most of Your H2020 Project - Boosting the impact of your project through effective communication, dissemination and exploitation – European IP Help Desk

Support to address the criterion for communication – Formas' annual open call

Related pages:

• For heads of departments/units/divisions
• For Doctoral Students
• For researchers
• International
• Calls for external grants
• Environmental monitoring and assessment

[email protected] , +46 9 786 8389 , +46 72 2365670

[email protected] , +46 18 67 3242 , +46 72 2288689

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

16 21. Qualitative research dissemination

Chapter outline.

• Ethical responsibility and cultural respectfulness (8 minute read time)
• Critical considerations (5 minute read time)
• Informing your dissemination plan (11 minute read time)
• Final product taking shape (10 minute read time)

Content warning: Examples in this chapter contain references to research as a potential tool to stigmatize or oppress vulnerable groups, mistreatment and inequalities experienced by Native American tribes, sibling relationships, caregiving, child welfare, criminal justice and recidivism, first generation college students, Covid-19, school culture and race, health (in)equity, physical and sensory abilities, and transgender youth.

Your sweat and hard work has paid off!  You’ve planned your study, collected your data, and completed your analysis. But alas, no rest for the weary student researcher.  Now you need to share your findings. As researchers, we generally have some ideas where and with whom we desire to share our findings, but these plans may evolve and change during our research process.  Communicating our findings with a broader audience is a critical step in the research process, so make sure not to treat this like an afterthought. Remember, research is about making a contribution to collective knowledge-building in the area of study that you are interested in.  Indeed, research is of no value if there is no audience to receive it. You worked hard…get those findings out there!

In planning for this phase of research, we can consider a variety of methods for sharing our study findings. Among other options, we may choose to write our findings up as an article in a professional journal, provide a report to an organization, give testimony to a legislative group, or create a presentation for a community event. We will explore these options in a bit more detail below in section 21.4 where we talk more about different types of qualitative research products. We also want to think about our intended audience.

For your research, answer these two key questions as you are planning for dissemination:

• Who are you targeting to communicate your findings to?  In other words, who needs to hear the results of your study?
• What do you hope your audience will take away after learning about your study?

21.1 Ethical responsibility and cultural respectfulness

Learning Objectives

Learners will be able to…

• Identify key ethical considerations in developing their qualitative research dissemination plan
• Conceptualize how research dissemination may impact diverse groups, both presently and into the future

Have you ever been misrepresented or portrayed in a negative light? It doesn’t feel good. It especially doesn’t feel good when the person portraying us has power, control and influence.  While you might not feel powerful, research can be a powerful tool, and can be used and abused for many ends. Once research is out in the world, it is largely out of our control, so we need to approach dissemination with care. Be thoughtful about how you represent your work and take time to think through the potential implications it may have, both intended and unintended, for the people it represents.

As alluded to in the paragraph above, research comes with hefty responsibilities. You aren’t off the hook if you are conducting quantitative research.  While quantitative research deals with numbers, these numbers still represent people and their relationships to social problems. However, with qualitative research, we are often dealing with a smaller sample and trying to learn more from them. As such, our job often carries additional weight as we think about how we will represent our findings and the people they reflect. Furthermore, we probably hope that our research has an impact; that in some way, it leads to change around some issue. This is especially true as social work researchers. Our research often deals with oppressed groups, social problems, and inequality. However, it’s hard to predict the implications that our research may have. This suggests that we need to be especially thoughtful about how we present our research to others.

Two of the core values of social work involve respecting the inherent dignity and worth of each person, practicing with integrity, and behaving in a trustworthy manner [1] .  As social work researchers, to uphold these values, we need to consider how we are representing the people we are researching. Our work needs to honestly and accurately reflect our findings, but it also needs to be sensitive and respectful to the people it represents. In Chapter 8 we discussed research ethics and introduced the concept of beneficence or the idea that research needs to support the welfare of participants. Beneficence is particularly important as we think about our findings becoming public and how the public will receive, interpret and use this information. Thus, both as social workers and researchers, we need to be conscientious of how dissemination of our findings takes place.

As you think about the people in your sample and the communities or groups to which they belong, consider some of these questions:

• How are participants being portrayed in my research?
• What characteristics or findings are being shared or highlighted in my research that may directly or indirectly be associated with participants?
• Have the groups that I am researching been stigmatized, stereotyped, and/or misrepresented in the past? If so, how does my research potentially reinforce or challenge these representations?
• How might my research be perceived or interpreted by members of the community or group it represents?
• In what ways does my research honor the dignity and worth of participants?

Qualitative research often has a voyeuristic quality to it, as we are seeking a window into participants’ lives by exploring their experiences, beliefs, and values. As qualitative researchers, we have a role as stewards or caretakers of data. We need to be mindful of how data are gathered, maintained, and most germane to our conversation here, how data are used. We need to craft research products that honor and respect individual participants (micro), our collective sample as a whole (meso), and the communities that our research may represent (macro).

As we prepare to disseminate our findings, our ethical responsibilities as researchers also involve honoring the commitments we have made during the research process. We need to think back to our early phases of the research process, including our initial conversations with research partners and other stakeholders who helped us to coordinate our research activities. If we made any promises along the way about how the findings would be presented or used, we need to uphold them here.  Additionally, we need to abide by what we committed to in our informed consent .  Part of our informed consent involves letting participants know how findings may be used.  We need to present our findings according to these commitments. We of course also have a commitment to represent our research honestly.

As an extension of our ethical responsibilities as researchers, we need to consider the impact that our findings may have, as well as our need to be socially conscientious researchers.  As scouts, we were taught to leave our campsite in a better state than when we arrived. I think it is helpful to think of research in these terms.  Think about the group(s) that may be represented by your research; what impact might your findings have for the lives of members of this group? Will it leave their lives in a better state than before you conducted your research? As a responsible researcher, you need to be thoughtful, aware and realistic about how your research findings might be interpreted and used by others. As social workers, while we hope that findings will be used to improve the lives of our clients, we can’t ignore that findings can also be used to further oppress or stigmatize vulnerable groups; research is not apolitical and we should not be naive about this. It is worth mentioning the concept of sustainable research here.  Sustainable research involves conducting research projects that have a long-term, sustainable impact for the social groups we work with. As researchers, this means that we need to actively plan for how our research will continue to benefit the communities we work with into the future. This can be supported by staying involved with these communities, routinely checking-in and seeking input from community members, and making sure to share our findings in ways that community members can access, understand, and utilize them. Nate Olson provides a very inspiring Ted Talk about the importance of building resilient communities. As you consider your research project, think about it in these terms.

Key Takeaways

• As you think about how best to share your qualitative findings, remember that these findings represent people. As such, we have a responsibility as social work researchers to ensure that our findings are presented in honest, respectful, and culturally sensitive ways.
• Since this phase of research deals with how we are going to share our findings with the public, we need to actively consider the potential implications of our research and how it may be interpreted and used.

Is your work, in some way, helping to contribute to a resilient and sustainable community? It may not be a big tangible project as described in Olson’s Ted Talk , but is it providing a resource for change and growth to a group of people, either directly or indirectly? Does it promote sustainability amongst the social networks that might be impacted by the research you are conducting?

21.2 Critical considerations

• Identify how issues of power and control are present in the dissemination of qualitative research findings
• Begin to examine and account for their own role in the qualitative research process, and address this in their findings

This is the part of our research that is shared with the public and because of this, issues like reciprocity, ownership, and transparency are relevant.  We need to think about who will have access to the tangible products of our research and how that research will get used. As researchers, we likely benefit directly from research products; perhaps it helps us to advance our career, obtain a good grade, or secure funding.  Our research participants often benefit indirectly by advancing knowledge about a topic that may be relevant or important to them, but often don’t experience the same direct tangible benefits that we do. However, a participatory perspective challenges us to involve community members from the outset in discussions about what changes would be most meaningful to their communities and what research products would be most helpful in accomplishing those changes. This is especially important as it relates to the role of research as a tool to support empowerment.

Ownership of research products is also important as an issue of power and control. We will discuss a range of venues for presenting your qualitative research, some of which are more amenable to shared ownership than others.  For instance, if you are publishing your findings in an academic journal, you will need to sign an agreement with that publisher about how the information in that article can be used and who has access to it.  Similarly, if you are presenting findings at a national conference, travel and other conference-related expenses and requirements may make access to these research products prohibitive. In these instances, the researcher and the organization(s) they negotiate with (e.g. the publishing company, the conference organizing body) share control.  However, disseminating qualitative findings in a public space, public record, or community-owned resource means that more equitable ownership might be negotiated. An equitable or reciprocal arrangement might not always be able to be reached, however. Transparency about who owns the products of research is important if you are working with community partners. To support this, establishing a Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) or Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) e arly in the research process is important. This document should clearly articulate roles, responsibilities, and a number of other details, such as ownership of research products between the researcher and the partnering group(s).

Resources for learning more about MOUs and MOAs

Center for Community Health and Development, University of Kansas. (n.d.). Community toolbox: Section 9. Understanding and writing contracts and memoranda of agreement [Webpage]. https://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/structure/organizational-structure/understanding-writing-contracts-memoranda-agreement/main

Collaborative Center for Health Equity, University of Wisconson Madison. (n.d.). Standard agreement for research with community organizations [Template] https://d1uqjtzsuwlnsf.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/163/2018/08/CCHE-UW-MOU-sample.pdf

Office of Research, UC Davis. (n.d.). Research MOUs [Webpage].  https://research.ucdavis.edu/proposals-grants-contracts/international-agreements/memorandum-understanding/

Office of Research, The University of Texas at Dallas. (n.d.). Types of agreements [Webpage]. https://research.utdallas.edu/researchers/contracts/types-of-agreements

In our discussion about qualitative research, we have also frequently identified the need for the qualitative researcher to account for their role throughout the research process.  Part of this accounting can specifically apply to qualitative research products. This is our opportunity to demonstrate to our audience that we have been reflective throughout the course of the study and how this has influenced the work we did.  Some qualitative research studies include a positionality statement within the final product. This is often toward the beginning of the report or the presentation and includes information about the researcher(s)’s identity and worldview, particularly details relevant to the topic being studied. This can include why you are invested in the study, what experiences have shaped how you have come to think about the topic, and any positions or assumptions you make with respect to the topic.  This is another way to encourage transparency. It can also be a means of relegating or at least acknowledging some of our power in the research process, as it can provide one modest way for us, as the researcher, to be a bit more exposed or vulnerable, although this is a far cry from making the risks of research equitable between the researcher and the researched. However, the positionality statement can be a place to integrate our identities, who we are as an individual, a researcher, and a social work practitioner.  Granted, for some of us that might be volumes, but we need to condense this down to a brief but informative statement – don’t let it eclipse the research! It should just be enough to inform the audience and allow them to draw their own conclusions about who is telling the story of this research and how well they can be trusted. This student provides a helpful discussion of the positionality statement that she developed for her study.  Reviewing your reflexive journal (discussed in chapter  20 as a tool to enhance qualitative rigor) can help in identifying underlying assumptions and positions you might have grounded in your reactions throughout the research process. These insights can be integrated into your positionality statement. Please take a few minutes to watch this informative video of a student further explaining what a positionality statement is and providing a good example of one.

• The products of qualitative research often benefit the researcher disproportionately when compared to research participants or the communities they represent.  Whenever possible, we can seek out ways to disseminate research in ways that addresses this imbalance and supports more tangible and direct benefits to community members.
• Openly positioning ourselves in our dissemination plans can be an important way for qualitative researchers to be transparent and account for our role.

21.3 Informing your dissemination plan

• Appraise important dimensions of planning that will inform their research dissemination plan, including: audience, purpose, context and content
• Apply this appraisal to key decisions they will need to make when designing their qualitative research product(s)

This section will offer you a general overview of points to consider as you form the dissemination plan for your research. We will start with considerations regarding your audience, then turn our attention to the purpose of your research, and finally consider the importance of attending to both content and context as you plan for your final research product(s).

Perhaps the most important consideration you have as you plan how to present your work is your audience. Research is a product that is meant to be consumed, and because of this, we need to be conscious of our consumers. We will speak more extensively about knowing your audience in Chapter 24 , devoted to both sharing and consuming research. Regardless of who your audience is (e.g. community members, classmates, research colleagues, practicing social workers, state legislator), there will be common elements that will be important to convey. While the way you present them will vary greatly according to who is listening, Table 21.1 offers a brief review of the elements that you will want your audience to leave with.

Once we determine who our audience is, we can further tailor our dissemination plan to that specific group.  Of course, we may be presenting our findings in more than one venue, and in that case, we will have multiple plans that will meet the needs of each specific audience.

It’s a good idea to pitch your plan first.  However you plan to present your findings, you will want to have someone preview before you share with a wider audience. Ideally, whoever previews will be a person from your target audience or at least someone who knows them well. Getting feedback can go a long way in helping us with the clarity with which we convey our ideas and the impact they have on our audience. This might involve giving a practice speech, having someone review your article or report, or practice discussing your research one-on-one, as you would with a poster presentation.  Let’s talk about some specific audiences that you may be targeting and their unique needs or expectations.

Below I will go through some brief considerations for each of these different audiences. I have tried to focus this discussion on elements that are relevant specific to qualitative studies since we do revisit this topic in Chapter 24 .

Research community

When presenting your findings to an academic audience or other research-related community, it is probably safe to a make a few assumptions. This audience is likely to have a general understanding of the research process and what it entails.  For this reason, you will have to do less explaining of research-related terms and concepts. However, compared to other audiences, you will probably have to provide a bit more detail about what steps you took in your research process, especially as they relate to qualitative rigor, because this group will want to know about how your research was carried out and how you arrived at your decisions throughout the research process. Additionally, you will want to make a clear connection between which qualitative design you chose and your research question; a methodological justification . Researchers will also want to have a good idea about how your study fits within the wider body of scientific knowledge that it is related to and what future studies you feel are needed based on your findings. You are likely to encounter this audience if you are disseminating through a peer-reviewed journal article, presenting at a research conference, or giving an invited talk in an academic setting.

Professional community

We often find ourselves presenting our research to other professionals, such as social workers in the field. While this group may have some working knowledge of research, they are likely to be much more focused on how your research is related to the work they do and the clients they serve. While you will need to convey your design accurately, this audience is most likely to be invested in what you learned and what it means (especially for practice). You will want to set the stage for the discussion by doing a good job expressing your connection to and passion for the topic (a positionality statemen t might be particularly helpful here), what we know about the issue, and why it is important to their professional lives. You will want to give good contextual information for your qualitative findings so that practitioners can know if these findings might apply to people they work with. Also, as since social work practitioners generally place emphasis on person-centered practice, hearing the direct words of participants (quotes) whenever possible, is likely to be impactful as we present qualitative results.  Where academics and researchers will want to know about implications for future research, professionals will want to know about implications for how this information could help transform services in the future or understand the clients they serve.

Lay community

The lay community are people who don’t necessarily have specialized training or knowledge of the subject, but may be interested or invested for some other reason; perhaps the issue you are studying affects them or a loved one. Since this is the general public, you should expect to spend the most time explaining scientific knowledge and research processes and terminology in accessible terms. Furthermore, you will want to invest some time establishing a personal connection to the topic (like I talked about for the professional community). They will likely want to know why you are interested and why you are a credible source for this information.  While this group may not be experts on research, as potential members of the group(s) that you may be researching, you do want to remember that they are experts in their own community. As such, you will want to be especially mindful of approaching how you present findings with a sense of cultural humility (although hopefully you have this in mind across all audiences). It will be good to discuss what steps you took to ensure that your findings accurately reflect what participants shared with you ( rigor ). You will want to be most clear with this group about what they should take away, without overstating your findings.

Regardless of who your audience is, remember that you are an ambassador.  You may represent a topic, a population, an organization, or the whole institution of research, or any combination of these.  Make sure to present your findings honestly, ethically, and clearly.  Furthermore, I’m assuming that the research you are conducting is important because you have spent a lot of time and energy to arrive at your findings. Make sure that this importance comes through in your dissemination.  Tell a compelling story with your research!  

Who needs to hear the message of your qualitative research?

• Example. If you are presenting your research about caregiver fatigue to a caregiver support group, you won’t need to spend time describing the role of caregivers because your audience will have lived experience.
• Example. If you are presenting your research findings to a group of academics, you wouldn’t have to explain what a sampling frame is, but if you are sharing it with a group of community members from a local housing coalition, you will need to help them understand what this is (or maybe use a phrase that is more meaningful to them).
• Example. If you are speaking to a group of child welfare workers about your study examining trauma-informed communication strategies, they are probably going to want to know how these strategies might impact the work that they do.
• Example. If you are sharing your findings at a meeting with a council member, it may be especially meaningful to share direct quotes from constituents.

Being clear about the purpose of your research from the outset is immeasurably helpful.  What are you hoping to accomplish with your study?  We can certainly look to the overarching purpose of qualitative research, that being to develop/expand/challenge/explore understanding of some topic.  But, what are you specifically attempting to accomplish with your study? Two of the main reasons we conduct research are to raise awareness about a topic and to create change around some issue. Let’s say you are conducting a study to better understand the experience of recidivism in the criminal justice system. This is an example of a study whose main purpose is to better understand and raise awareness around a particular social phenomenon (recidivism). On the other hand, you could also conduct a study that examines the use of strengths-based strategies by probation officers to reduce recidivism. This would fall into the category of research promoting a specific change (the use of strengths-based strategies among probation officers). I would wager that your research topic falls into one of these two very broad categories. If this is the case, how would you answer the corresponding questions below?

Are you seeking to raise awareness of a particular issue with your research? If so,

• Whose awareness needs raising? 
• What will “speak” most effectively to this group? 
• How can you frame your research so that it has the most impact?

Are you seeking to create a specific change with your research? If so,

• What will that change look like? 
• How can your research best support that change occurring? 
• Who has the power to create that change and what will be most compelling in reaching them? 

How you answer these questions will help to inform your dissemination plan.  For instance, your dissemination plan will likely look very different if you are trying to persuade a group of legislators to pass a bill versus trying to share a new model or theory with academic colleagues. Considering your purposes will help you to convey the message of your research most effectively and efficiently. We invest a lot of ourselves in our research, so make sure to keep your sights focused on what you hope to accomplish with it!

Content and context

As a reminder, qualitative research often has a dual responsibility for conveying both content and context. You can think of content as the actual data that is shared with us or that we obtain, while context is the circumstances under which that data sharing occurs. Content conveys the message and context provides us the clues with which we can decode and make sense of that message.

While quantitative research may provide some contextual information, especially in regards to describing its sample, it rarely receives as much attention or detail as it does in qualitative studies. Because of this, you will want to plan for how you will attend to both the content and context of your study in planning for your dissemination.

• Research is an intentional act; you are trying to accomplish something with it. To be successful, you need to approach dissemination planfully.
• Planning the most effective way of sharing our qualitative findings requires looking beyond what is convenient or even conventional, and requires us to consider a number of factors, including our audience, the purpose or intent of our research and the nature of both the content and the context that we are trying to convey.

21.4 Final product taking shape

• Evaluate the various means of disseminating research and consider their applicability for your research project
• Determine appropriate building blocks for designing your qualitative research product

As we have discussed, qualitative research takes many forms. It should then come as no surprise that qualitative research products also come in many different packages. To help guide you as the final products of your research take shape, we will discuss some of the building blocks or elements that you are likely to include as tools in sharing your qualitative findings.  These are the elements that will allow you to flesh out the details of your dissemination plan.

Building blocks

There are many building blocks that are at our disposal as we formulate our qualitative research product(s). Quantitative researchers have charts, graphs, tables, and narrative descriptions of numerical output.  These tools allow the quantitative researcher to tell the story of their research with numbers. As qualitative researchers, we are tasked with telling the story of our research findings as well, but our tools look different.  While this isn’t an exhaustive list of tools that are at our disposal as qualitative researchers, a number of commonly used elements in sharing qualitative findings are discussed here.  Depending on your study design and the type of data you are working with, you may use one or some combination of the building blocks discussed below.

Themes are a very common element when presenting qualitative research findings. They may be called themes, but they may also go by other names: categories, dimensions, main ideas, etc.  Themes offer the qualitative researcher a way to share ideas that emerged from your analysis that were shared by multiple participants or across multiple sources of data.  They help us to distill the large amounts of qualitative data that we might be working with into more concise and manageable pieces of information that are more consumable for our audience. When integrating themes into your qualitative research product, you will want to offer your audience: the title of the theme (try to make this as specific/meaningful as possible), a brief description or definition of the theme, any accompanying dimensions or sub-themes that may be relevant, and examples (when appropriate).

Quotes offer you the opportunity to share participants’ exact words with your audience.  Of course, we can’t only rely on quotes, because we need to knit the information that is shared into one cohesive description of our findings and an endless list of quotes is unlikely to support this. Because of this, you will want to be judicious in selecting your quotes. Choose quotes that can stand on their own, best reflect the sentiment that is being captured by the theme or category of findings that you are discussing, and are likely to speak to and be understood by your audience.  Quotes are a great way to help your findings come alive or to give them greater depth and significance. If you are using quotes, be sure to do so in a balanced manner – don’t only use them in some sections but not others, or use a large number to support one theme and only one or two for another.  Finally, we often provide some brief demographic information in a parenthetical reference following a quote so our reader knows a little bit about the person who shared the information.  This helps to provide some context for the quote.

Kohli and Pizarro (2016) [2] provide a good example of a qualitative study using quotes to exemplify their themes. In their study, they gathered data through short-answer questionnaires and in-depth interviews from racial-justice oriented teachers of Color. Their study explored the experiences and motivations of these teachers and the environments in which they worked. As you might guess, the words of the teacher-participants were especially powerful and the quotes provided in the results section were very informative and important in helping to fulfill the aim of the research study. Take a few minutes to review this article.  Note how the authors provide a good amount of detail as to what each of the themes meant and how they used the quotes to demonstrate and support each theme. The quotes help bring the themes to life and anchor the results in the actual words of the participants (suggesting greater trustworthiness in the findings).   

Figure 21.1 below offers a more extensive example of a theme being reported along with supporting quotes from a study conducted by Karabanow, Gurman, and Naylor (2012) [3] . This study focused on the role of work activities in the lives of “Guatemalan street youth”. One of the important themes had to do with intersection of work and identity for this group.  In this example, brief quotes are used within the body of the description of the theme, and also longer quotes (full sentence(s)) to demonstrate important aspects of the description.

Pictures or videos

If our data collection involves the use of photographs, drawings, videos or other artistic expression of participants or collection of artifacts, we may very well include selections of these in our dissemination of qualitative findings.  In fact, if we failed to include these, it would seem a bit inauthentic.  For the same reason we include quotes as direct representations of participants’ contributions, it is a good idea to provide direct reference to other visual forms of data that support or demonstrate our findings. We might incorporate narrative descriptions of these elements or quotes from participants that help to interpret their meaning. Integrating pictures and quotes is especially common if we are conducting a study using a Photovoice approach, as we discussed in Chapter 17 , where a main goal of the research technique is to bring together participant generated visuals with collaborative interpretation.

Take some time to explore the website linked here. It is the webpage for The Philidelphia Collaborative for Health Equity’s PhotoVoice Exhibit Gallery and offers a good demonstration of research that brings together pictures and text.

Graphic or figure

Qualitative researchers will often create a graphic or figure to visually reflect how the various pieces of your findings come together or relate to each other. Using a visual representation can be especially compelling for people who are visual learners.  When you are using a visual representation, you will want to: label all elements clearly; include all the components or themes that are part of your findings; pay close attention to where you place and how you orient each element (as their spatial arrangement carries meaning); and finally, offer a brief but informative explanation that helps your reader to interpret your representation.   A special subcategory of visual representation is process.  These are especially helpful to lay out a sequential relationship within your findings or a model that has emerged out of your analysis. A process or model will show the ‘flow’ of ideas or knowledge in our findings, the logic of how one concept proceeds to the next and what each step of the model entails.

Noonan and colleagues (2004) [4] conducted a qualitative study that examined the career development of high achieving women with physical and sensory disabilities. Through the analysis of their interviews, they built a model of career development based on these women’s experiences with a figure that helps to conceptually illustrate the model. They place the ‘dyanmic self’ in the center, surrounded by a dotted (permeable) line, with a number of influences outside the line (i.e. family influences, disability impact, career attitudes and behaviors, sociopoltical context, developmental opportunities and social support) and arrows directed inward and outward between each influence and the dynamic self to demonstrate mutual influence/exchange between them.  The image is included in the results section of their study and brings together “core categories” and demonstrates how they work together in the emergent theory or how they relate to each other. Because so many of our findings are dynamic, like Noonan and colleagues, showing interaction and exchange between ideas, figures can be especially helpful in conveying this as we share our results.

Going one step further than the graphic or figure discussed above, qualitative researchers may decide to combine and synthesize findings into one integrated representation. In the case of the graphic or figure, the individual elements still maintain their distinctiveness, but are brought together to reflect how they are related. In a composite however, rather than just showing that they are related (static), the audience actually gets to ‘see’ the elements interacting (dynamic). The integrated and interactive findings of a composite can take many forms.  It might be a written narrative, such as a fictionalized case study that reflects of highlights the many aspects that emerged during analysis. It could be a poem, dance, painting or any other performance or medium. Ultimately, a composite offers an audience a meaningful and comprehensive expression of our findings. If you are choosing to utilize a composite, there is an underlying assumption that is conveyed: you are suggesting that the findings of your study are best understood holistically. By discussing each finding individually, they lose some of their potency or significance, so a composite is required to bring them together.  As an example of a composite, consider that you are conducting research with a number of First Nations Peoples in Canada.  After consulting with a number of Elders and learning about the importance of oral traditions and the significance of storytelling, you collaboratively determine that the best way to disseminate your findings will be to create and share a story as a means of presenting your research findings.  The use of composites also assumes that the ‘truths’ revealed in our data can take many forms. The Transgender Youth Project hosted by the Mandala Center for Change , is an example of legislative theatre combining research, artistic expression, and political advocacy and a good example of action-oriented research.

While you haven’t heard much about numbers in our qualitative chapters, I’m going to break with tradition and speak briefly about them here.  For many qualitative projects we do include some numeric information in our final product(s), mostly in the way of counts. Counts usually show up in the way of frequency of demographic characteristics of our sample or characteristics regarding our artifacts, if they aren’t people.  These may be included as a table or they may be integrated into the narrative we provide, but in either case, our goal in including this information is to offer the reader information so they can better understand who or what our sample is representing.  The other time we sometimes include count information is in respect to the frequency and coverage of the themes or categories that are represented in our data. Frequency information about a theme can help the reader to know how often an idea came up in our analysis, while coverage can help them to know how widely dispersed this idea was (e.g. did nearly everyone mention this, or was it a small group of participants).

• There are a wide variety of means by which you can deliver your qualitative research to the public.  Choose one that takes into account the various considerations that we have discussed above and also honors the ethical commitments that we outlined early in this chapter.
• Presenting qualitative research requires some amount of creativity.  Utilize the building blocks discussed in this chapter to help you consider how to most authentically and effectively convey your message to a wider audience.

What means of delivery will you be choosing for your dissemination plan?

What building blocks will best convey your qualitaitve results to your audience?

• National Association of Social Workers. (2017). NASW code of ethics. Retrieved from https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-English ↵
• Kohli, R., & Pizarro, M. (2016). Fighting to educate our own: Teachers of Color, relational accountability, and the struggle for racial justice. Equity & Excellence in Education, 49 (1), 72-84. ↵
• Karabanow, J., Gurman, E., & Naylor, T. (2012). Street youth labor as an Expression of survival and self-worth. Critical Social Work, 13 (2). ↵
• Noonan, B. M., Gallor, S. M., Hensler-McGinnis, N. F., Fassinger, R. E., Wang, S., & Goodman, J. (2004). Challenge and success: A Qualitative study of the career development of highly achieving women with physical and sensory disabilities. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51 (1), 68. ↵
• Ede, L., & Starrin, B. (2014). Unresolved conflicts and shaming processes: risk factors for long-term sick leave for mental-health reasons. Nordic Journal of Social Research, 5 , 39-54. ↵

how you plan to share your research findings

One of the three values indicated in the Belmont report. An obligation to protect people from harm by maximizing benefits and minimizing risks.

A written agreement between parties that want to participate in a collaborative project.

A research journal that helps the researcher to reflect on and consider their thoughts and reactions to the research process and how it may be shaping the study

Context is the circumstances surrounding an artifact, event, or experience.

Rigor is the process through which we demonstrate, to the best of our ability, that our research is empirically sound and reflects a scientific approach to knowledge building.

Content is the substance of the artifact (e.g. the words, picture, scene). It is what can actually be observed.

Graduate research methods in social work Copyright © 2020 by Matthew DeCarlo, Cory Cummings, Kate Agnelli is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Reserve a study room
• Library Account
• Undergraduate Students
• Graduate Students
• Faculty & Staff

Create a Research Dissemination Plan

• Research Dissemination
• Dissemination Plan Examples
• Dissemination Plan Template
• Guide Background
• Does your research contain sensitive or protected data? Will you need to place conditions or restrictions on the recipient? Which parts of your research are you allowing your recipient to use for publication?
• How will you share with other academic researchers, and how will you share with any community members involved in the research?
• How will you share with other end users and stakeholders for your research?
• What does utilization of your research look like for each of these audiences? Or, what are the outcomes you want your research to produce?
• What are your shared mission or goals?
• How can you build relationships with these partners?
• What resources are available for dissemination (people, fundings, skills, etc.)?
• Face-to-face or online?
• How will you “package” your research for different audiences?
• Where and how do each of your audiences get their information?
• What potential difficulties are there in communicating with your audiences? For example, do they see you as a trusted source of information? Are there barriers to their receiving or finding your research or to their ability to utilize it?
• How will you know/measure success? Impact on researchers? Impact for community?
• What kind of indicators or assessment measures can you use?
• Is your dissemination an ongoing conversation? For how long will you continue to share information, and are you concerned about sustainability of your project outcomes?
• What actions and strategies will you take to disseminate your research?
• When and how frequently will you share your data and findings, including preliminary findings, your research process and methodology, and any lessons learned? When is it most valuable for each of your audiences to receive your research findings?
• Who is responsible for each step in your plan?
• << Previous: Dissemination Plan Examples
• Next: Guide Background >>
• Last Updated: Nov 20, 2023 11:33 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.vcu.edu/dissemination

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » Research Proposal – Types, Template and Example

Research Proposal – Types, Template and Example

Table of Contents

Research Proposal

Research proposal is a document that outlines a proposed research project . It is typically written by researchers, scholars, or students who intend to conduct research to address a specific research question or problem.

Types of Research Proposal

Research proposals can vary depending on the nature of the research project and the specific requirements of the funding agency, academic institution, or research program. Here are some common types of research proposals:

Academic Research Proposal

This is the most common type of research proposal, which is prepared by students, scholars, or researchers to seek approval and funding for an academic research project. It includes all the essential components mentioned earlier, such as the introduction, literature review , methodology , and expected outcomes.

Grant Proposal

A grant proposal is specifically designed to secure funding from external sources, such as government agencies, foundations, or private organizations. It typically includes additional sections, such as a detailed budget, project timeline, evaluation plan, and a description of the project’s alignment with the funding agency’s priorities and objectives.

Dissertation or Thesis Proposal

Students pursuing a master’s or doctoral degree often need to submit a proposal outlining their intended research for their dissertation or thesis. These proposals are usually more extensive and comprehensive, including an in-depth literature review, theoretical framework, research questions or hypotheses, and a detailed methodology.

Research Project Proposal

This type of proposal is often prepared by researchers or research teams within an organization or institution. It outlines a specific research project that aims to address a particular problem, explore a specific area of interest, or provide insights for decision-making. Research project proposals may include sections on project management, collaboration, and dissemination of results.

Research Fellowship Proposal

Researchers or scholars applying for research fellowships may be required to submit a proposal outlining their proposed research project. These proposals often emphasize the novelty and significance of the research and its alignment with the goals and objectives of the fellowship program.

Collaborative Research Proposal

In cases where researchers from multiple institutions or disciplines collaborate on a research project, a collaborative research proposal is prepared. This proposal highlights the objectives, responsibilities, and contributions of each collaborator, as well as the overall research plan and coordination mechanisms.

Research Proposal Outline

A research proposal typically follows a standard outline that helps structure the document and ensure all essential components are included. While the specific headings and subheadings may vary slightly depending on the requirements of your institution or funding agency, the following outline provides a general structure for a research proposal:

• Title of the research proposal
• Name of the researcher(s) or principal investigator(s)
• Affiliation or institution
• Date of submission
• A concise summary of the research proposal, typically limited to 200-300 words.
• Briefly introduce the research problem or question, state the objectives, summarize the methodology, and highlight the expected outcomes or significance of the research.
• Provide an overview of the subject area and the specific research problem or question.
• Present relevant background information, theories, or concepts to establish the need for the research.
• Clearly state the research objectives or research questions that the study aims to address.
• Indicate the significance or potential contributions of the research.
• Summarize and analyze relevant studies, theories, or scholarly works.
• Identify research gaps or unresolved issues that your study intends to address.
• Highlight the novelty or uniqueness of your research.
• Describe the overall approach or research design that will be used (e.g., experimental, qualitative, quantitative).
• Justify the chosen approach based on the research objectives and question.
• Explain how data will be collected (e.g., surveys, interviews, experiments).
• Describe the sampling strategy and sample size, if applicable.
• Address any ethical considerations related to data collection.
• Outline the data analysis techniques or statistical methods that will be applied.
• Explain how the data will be interpreted and analyzed to answer the research question(s).
• Provide a detailed schedule or timeline that outlines the various stages of the research project.
• Specify the estimated duration for each stage, including data collection, analysis, and report writing.
• State the potential outcomes or results of the research.
• Discuss the potential significance or contributions of the study to the field.
• Address any potential limitations or challenges that may be encountered.
• Identify the resources required to conduct the research, such as funding, equipment, or access to data.
• Specify any collaborations or partnerships necessary for the successful completion of the study.
• Include a list of cited references in the appropriate citation style (e.g., APA, MLA).

———————————————————————————————–

Research Proposal Example Template

Here’s an example of a research proposal to give you an idea of how it can be structured:

Title: The Impact of Social Media on Adolescent Well-being: A Mixed-Methods Study

This research proposal aims to investigate the impact of social media on the well-being of adolescents. The study will employ a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews to gather comprehensive data. The research objectives include examining the relationship between social media use and mental health, exploring the role of peer influence in shaping online behaviors, and identifying strategies for promoting healthy social media use among adolescents. The findings of this study will contribute to the understanding of the effects of social media on adolescent well-being and inform the development of targeted interventions.

1. Introduction

1.1 Background and Context:

Adolescents today are immersed in social media platforms, which have become integral to their daily lives. However, concerns have been raised about the potential negative impact of social media on their well-being, including increased rates of depression, anxiety, and body dissatisfaction. It is crucial to investigate this phenomenon further and understand the underlying mechanisms to develop effective strategies for promoting healthy social media use among adolescents.

1.2 Research Objectives:

The main objectives of this study are:

• To examine the association between social media use and mental health outcomes among adolescents.
• To explore the influence of peer relationships and social comparison on online behaviors.
• To identify strategies and interventions to foster positive social media use and enhance adolescent well-being.

2. Literature Review

Extensive research has been conducted on the impact of social media on adolescents. Existing literature suggests that excessive social media use can contribute to negative outcomes, such as low self-esteem, cyberbullying, and addictive behaviors. However, some studies have also highlighted the positive aspects of social media, such as providing opportunities for self-expression and social support. This study will build upon this literature by incorporating both quantitative and qualitative approaches to gain a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between social media and adolescent well-being.

3. Methodology

3.1 Research Design:

This study will adopt a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews. The quantitative phase will involve administering standardized questionnaires to a representative sample of adolescents to assess their social media use, mental health indicators, and perceived social support. The qualitative phase will include in-depth interviews with a subset of participants to explore their experiences, motivations, and perceptions related to social media use.

3.2 Data Collection Methods:

Quantitative data will be collected through an online survey distributed to schools in the target region. The survey will include validated scales to measure social media use, mental health outcomes, and perceived social support. Qualitative data will be collected through semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of participants. The interviews will be audio-recorded and transcribed for thematic analysis.

3.3 Data Analysis:

Quantitative data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics and regression analysis to examine the relationships between variables. Qualitative data will be analyzed thematically to identify common themes and patterns within participants’ narratives. Integration of quantitative and qualitative findings will provide a comprehensive understanding of the research questions.

4. Timeline

The research project will be conducted over a period of 12 months, divided into specific phases, including literature review, study design, data collection, analysis, and report writing. A detailed timeline outlining the key milestones and activities is provided in Appendix A.

5. Expected Outcomes and Significance

This study aims to contribute to the existing literature on the impact of social media on adolescent well-being by employing a mixed-methods approach. The findings will inform the development of evidence-based interventions and guidelines to promote healthy social media use among adolescents. This research has the potential to benefit adolescents, parents, educators, and policymakers by providing insights into the complex relationship between social media and well-being and offering strategies for fostering positive online experiences.

6. Resources

The resources required for this research include access to a representative sample of adolescents, research assistants for data collection, statistical software for data analysis, and funding to cover survey administration and participant incentives. Ethical considerations will be taken into account, ensuring participant confidentiality and obtaining informed consent.

7. References

Research Proposal Writing Guide

Writing a research proposal can be a complex task, but with proper guidance and organization, you can create a compelling and well-structured proposal. Here’s a step-by-step guide to help you through the process:

• Understand the requirements: Familiarize yourself with the guidelines and requirements provided by your institution, funding agency, or program. Pay attention to formatting, page limits, specific sections or headings, and any other instructions.
• Identify your research topic: Choose a research topic that aligns with your interests, expertise, and the goals of your program or funding opportunity. Ensure that your topic is specific, focused, and relevant to the field of study.
• Conduct a literature review : Review existing literature and research relevant to your topic. Identify key theories, concepts, methodologies, and findings related to your research question. This will help you establish the context, identify research gaps, and demonstrate the significance of your proposed study.
• Define your research objectives and research question(s): Clearly state the objectives you aim to achieve with your research. Formulate research questions that address the gaps identified in the literature review. Your research objectives and questions should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART).
• Develop a research methodology: Determine the most appropriate research design and methodology for your study. Consider whether quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods approaches will best address your research question(s). Describe the data collection methods, sampling strategy, data analysis techniques, and any ethical considerations associated with your research.
• Create a research plan and timeline: Outline the various stages of your research project, including tasks, milestones, and deadlines. Develop a realistic timeline that considers factors such as data collection, analysis, and report writing. This plan will help you stay organized and manage your time effectively throughout the research process.
• A. Introduction: Provide background information on the research problem, highlight its significance, and introduce your research objectives and questions.
• B. Literature review: Summarize relevant literature, identify gaps, and justify the need for your proposed research.
• C . Methodology: Describe your research design, data collection methods, sampling strategy, data analysis techniques, and any ethical considerations.
• D . Expected outcomes and significance: Explain the potential outcomes, contributions, and implications of your research.
• E. Resources: Identify the resources required to conduct your research, such as funding, equipment, or access to data.
• F . References: Include a list of cited references in the appropriate citation style.
• Revise and proofread: Review your proposal for clarity, coherence, and logical flow. Check for grammar and spelling errors. Seek feedback from mentors, colleagues, or advisors to refine and improve your proposal.
• Finalize and submit: Make any necessary revisions based on feedback and finalize your research proposal. Ensure that you have met all the requirements and formatting guidelines. Submit your proposal within the specified deadline.

Research Proposal Length

The length of a research proposal can vary depending on the specific guidelines provided by your institution or funding agency. However, research proposals typically range from 1,500 to 3,000 words, excluding references and any additional supporting documents.

Purpose of Research Proposal

The purpose of a research proposal is to outline and communicate your research project to others, such as academic institutions, funding agencies, or potential collaborators. It serves several important purposes:

• Demonstrate the significance of the research: A research proposal explains the importance and relevance of your research project. It outlines the research problem or question, highlights the gaps in existing knowledge, and explains how your study will contribute to the field. By clearly articulating the significance of your research, you can convince others of its value and potential impact.
• Provide a clear research plan: A research proposal outlines the methodology, design, and approach you will use to conduct your study. It describes the research objectives, data collection methods, data analysis techniques, and potential outcomes. By presenting a clear research plan, you demonstrate that your study is well-thought-out, feasible, and likely to produce meaningful results.
• Secure funding or support: For researchers seeking funding or support for their projects, a research proposal is essential. It allows you to make a persuasive case for why your research is deserving of financial resources or institutional backing. The proposal explains the budgetary requirements, resources needed, and potential benefits of the research, helping you secure the necessary funding or support.
• Seek feedback and guidance: Presenting a research proposal provides an opportunity to receive feedback and guidance from experts in your field. It allows you to engage in discussions and receive suggestions for refining your research plan, improving the methodology, or addressing any potential limitations. This feedback can enhance the quality of your study and increase its chances of success.
• Establish ethical considerations: A research proposal also addresses ethical considerations associated with your study. It outlines how you will ensure participant confidentiality, obtain informed consent, and adhere to ethical guidelines and regulations. By demonstrating your awareness and commitment to ethical research practices, you build trust and credibility in your proposed study.

Importance of Research Proposal

The research proposal holds significant importance in the research process. Here are some key reasons why research proposals are important:

• Planning and organization: A research proposal requires careful planning and organization of your research project. It forces you to think through the research objectives, research questions, methodology, and potential outcomes before embarking on the actual study. This planning phase helps you establish a clear direction and framework for your research, ensuring that your efforts are focused and purposeful.
• Demonstrating the significance of the research: A research proposal allows you to articulate the significance and relevance of your study. By providing a thorough literature review and clearly defining the research problem or question, you can showcase the gaps in existing knowledge that your research aims to address. This demonstrates to others, such as funding agencies or academic institutions, why your research is important and deserving of support.
• Obtaining funding and resources: Research proposals are often required to secure funding for your research project. Funding agencies and organizations need to evaluate the feasibility and potential impact of the proposed research before allocating resources. A well-crafted research proposal helps convince funders of the value of your research and increases the likelihood of securing financial support, grants, or scholarships.
• Receiving feedback and guidance: Presenting a research proposal provides an opportunity to seek feedback and guidance from experts in your field. By sharing your research plan and objectives with others, you can benefit from their insights and suggestions. This feedback can help refine your research design, strengthen your methodology, and ensure that your study is rigorous and well-informed.
• Ethical considerations: A research proposal addresses ethical considerations associated with your study. It outlines how you will protect the rights and welfare of participants, maintain confidentiality, obtain informed consent, and adhere to ethical guidelines and regulations. This emphasis on ethical practices ensures that your research is conducted responsibly and with integrity.
• Enhancing collaboration and partnerships: A research proposal can facilitate collaborations and partnerships with other researchers, institutions, or organizations. When presenting your research plan, you may attract the interest of potential collaborators who share similar research interests or possess complementary expertise. Collaborative partnerships can enrich your study, expand your resources, and foster knowledge exchange.
• Establishing a research trajectory: A research proposal serves as a foundation for your research project. Once approved, it becomes a roadmap that guides your study’s implementation, data collection, analysis, and reporting. It helps maintain focus and ensures that your research stays on track and aligned with the initial objectives.

When to Write Research Proposal

The timing of when to write a research proposal can vary depending on the specific requirements and circumstances. However, here are a few common situations when it is appropriate to write a research proposal:

• Academic research: If you are a student pursuing a research degree, such as a Ph.D. or Master’s by research, you will typically be required to write a research proposal as part of the application process. This is usually done before starting the research program to outline your proposed study and seek approval from the academic institution.
• Funding applications: When applying for research grants, scholarships, or funding from organizations or institutions, you will often need to submit a research proposal. Funding agencies require a detailed description of your research project, including its objectives, methodology, and expected outcomes. Writing a research proposal in this context is necessary to secure financial support for your study.
• Research collaborations: When collaborating with other researchers, institutions, or organizations on a research project, it is common to prepare a research proposal. This helps outline the research objectives, roles and responsibilities, and expected contributions from each party. Writing a research proposal in this case allows all collaborators to align their efforts and ensure a shared understanding of the project.
• Research project within an organization: If you are conducting research within an organization, such as a company or government agency, you may be required to write a research proposal to gain approval and support for your study. This proposal outlines the research objectives, methodology, resources needed, and expected outcomes, ensuring that the project aligns with the organization’s goals and objectives.
• Independent research projects: Even if you are not required to write a research proposal, it can still be beneficial to develop one for your independent research projects. Writing a research proposal helps you plan and structure your study, clarify your research objectives, and anticipate potential challenges or limitations. It also allows you to communicate your research plans effectively to supervisors, mentors, or collaborators.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

How To Write A Proposal – Step By Step Guide...

Grant Proposal – Example, Template and Guide

How To Write A Business Proposal – Step-by-Step...

Business Proposal – Templates, Examples and Guide

How To Write A Research Proposal – Step-by-Step...

Proposal – Types, Examples, and Writing Guide

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Starting the research process
• How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

Published on October 12, 2022 by Shona McCombes and Tegan George. Revised on November 21, 2023.

A research proposal describes what you will investigate, why it’s important, and how you will conduct your research.

The format of a research proposal varies between fields, but most proposals will contain at least these elements:

Introduction

Literature review.

• Research design

Reference list

While the sections may vary, the overall objective is always the same. A research proposal serves as a blueprint and guide for your research plan, helping you get organized and feel confident in the path forward you choose to take.

Table of contents

Research proposal purpose, research proposal examples, research design and methods, contribution to knowledge, research schedule, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about research proposals.

Academics often have to write research proposals to get funding for their projects. As a student, you might have to write a research proposal as part of a grad school application , or prior to starting your thesis or dissertation .

In addition to helping you figure out what your research can look like, a proposal can also serve to demonstrate why your project is worth pursuing to a funder, educational institution, or supervisor.

Research proposal length

The length of a research proposal can vary quite a bit. A bachelor’s or master’s thesis proposal can be just a few pages, while proposals for PhD dissertations or research funding are usually much longer and more detailed. Your supervisor can help you determine the best length for your work.

One trick to get started is to think of your proposal’s structure as a shorter version of your thesis or dissertation , only without the results , conclusion and discussion sections.

Download our research proposal template

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

Writing a research proposal can be quite challenging, but a good starting point could be to look at some examples. We’ve included a few for you below.

• Example research proposal #1: “A Conceptual Framework for Scheduling Constraint Management”
• Example research proposal #2: “Medical Students as Mediators of Change in Tobacco Use”

Like your dissertation or thesis, the proposal will usually have a title page that includes:

• The proposed title of your project
• Your supervisor’s name
• Your institution and department

The first part of your proposal is the initial pitch for your project. Make sure it succinctly explains what you want to do and why.

Your introduction should:

• Introduce your topic
• Give necessary background and context
• Outline your  problem statement  and research questions

To guide your introduction , include information about:

• Who could have an interest in the topic (e.g., scientists, policymakers)
• How much is already known about the topic
• What is missing from this current knowledge
• What new insights your research will contribute
• Why you believe this research is worth doing

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

As you get started, it’s important to demonstrate that you’re familiar with the most important research on your topic. A strong literature review  shows your reader that your project has a solid foundation in existing knowledge or theory. It also shows that you’re not simply repeating what other people have already done or said, but rather using existing research as a jumping-off point for your own.

In this section, share exactly how your project will contribute to ongoing conversations in the field by:

• Comparing and contrasting the main theories, methods, and debates
• Examining the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches
• Explaining how will you build on, challenge, or synthesize prior scholarship

Following the literature review, restate your main  objectives . This brings the focus back to your own project. Next, your research design or methodology section will describe your overall approach, and the practical steps you will take to answer your research questions.

To finish your proposal on a strong note, explore the potential implications of your research for your field. Emphasize again what you aim to contribute and why it matters.

For example, your results might have implications for:

• Improving best practices
• Informing policymaking decisions
• Strengthening a theory or model
• Challenging popular or scientific beliefs
• Creating a basis for future research

Last but not least, your research proposal must include correct citations for every source you have used, compiled in a reference list . To create citations quickly and easily, you can use our free APA citation generator .

Some institutions or funders require a detailed timeline of the project, asking you to forecast what you will do at each stage and how long it may take. While not always required, be sure to check the requirements of your project.

Here’s an example schedule to help you get started. You can also download a template at the button below.

Download our research schedule template

If you are applying for research funding, chances are you will have to include a detailed budget. This shows your estimates of how much each part of your project will cost.

Make sure to check what type of costs the funding body will agree to cover. For each item, include:

• Cost : exactly how much money do you need?
• Justification : why is this cost necessary to complete the research?
• Source : how did you calculate the amount?

To determine your budget, think about:

• Travel costs : do you need to go somewhere to collect your data? How will you get there, and how much time will you need? What will you do there (e.g., interviews, archival research)?
• Materials : do you need access to any tools or technologies?
• Help : do you need to hire any research assistants for the project? What will they do, and how much will you pay them?

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

Methodology

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

Once you’ve decided on your research objectives , you need to explain them in your paper, at the end of your problem statement .

Keep your research objectives clear and concise, and use appropriate verbs to accurately convey the work that you will carry out for each one.

I will compare …

A research aim is a broad statement indicating the general purpose of your research project. It should appear in your introduction at the end of your problem statement , before your research objectives.

Research objectives are more specific than your research aim. They indicate the specific ways you’ll address the overarching aim.

A PhD, which is short for philosophiae doctor (doctor of philosophy in Latin), is the highest university degree that can be obtained. In a PhD, students spend 3–5 years writing a dissertation , which aims to make a significant, original contribution to current knowledge.

A PhD is intended to prepare students for a career as a researcher, whether that be in academia, the public sector, or the private sector.

A master’s is a 1- or 2-year graduate degree that can prepare you for a variety of careers.

All master’s involve graduate-level coursework. Some are research-intensive and intend to prepare students for further study in a PhD; these usually require their students to write a master’s thesis . Others focus on professional training for a specific career.

Critical thinking refers to the ability to evaluate information and to be aware of biases or assumptions, including your own.

Like information literacy , it involves evaluating arguments, identifying and solving problems in an objective and systematic way, and clearly communicating your ideas.

The best way to remember the difference between a research plan and a research proposal is that they have fundamentally different audiences. A research plan helps you, the researcher, organize your thoughts. On the other hand, a dissertation proposal or research proposal aims to convince others (e.g., a supervisor, a funding body, or a dissertation committee) that your research topic is relevant and worthy of being conducted.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. & George, T. (2023, November 21). How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved April 3, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-process/research-proposal/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a problem statement | guide & examples, writing strong research questions | criteria & examples, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Research Design and Proposal Writing in Spatial Science pp 69–84 Cite as

Disseminating Research

• Jay D. Gatrell 5 ,
• Gregory D. Bierly 6 ,
• Ryan R. Jensen 7 &
• Rajiv R. Thakur 8  
• First Online: 17 November 2020

577 Accesses

Once the proposal has been approved or grant monies awarded and research completed, scholars are obliged to share their research with their colleagues and community.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Chappell J (1989) Relations between geography and other disciplines. In: Kenzer (ed) On becoming a professional geographer. Merrill, Columbus, OH pp. 17–31

Google Scholar  

Flaherty C (2019). There’s a movement for better scientific posters. But are they really better? Inside Higher Ed, June 24.

Jakle J (1989) The writing of scholarly books in geography. In: Kenzer (ed) Columbus, OH: Merrill, pp. 124–134.

Wilson MW, Starkweather S (2014) Web presence of academic geographers: a generational divide? Prof Geograp 66(1):73–81

Article   Google Scholar  

Wu C, Murray A (2003) A cokriging method for estimating population density in urban areas. In: Abstracts of the annual meeting of the association of American geographers, New Orleans, LA. (PDF Document)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Geology and Geography, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, IL, USA

Prof. Dr. Jay D. Gatrell

Department of Earth and Environmental Systems, Indiana State University, Terre Haute, IN, USA

Gregory D. Bierly

Department of Geography, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA

Dr. Ryan R. Jensen

Department of Geosciences, Missouri State University, Springfield, MO, USA

Dr. Rajiv R. Thakur

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jay D. Gatrell .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Gatrell, J.D., Bierly, G.D., Jensen, R.R., Thakur, R.R. (2020). Disseminating Research. In: Research Design and Proposal Writing in Spatial Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60019-8_7

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60019-8_7

Published : 17 November 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-60018-1

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-60019-8

eBook Packages : Economics and Finance Economics and Finance (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Reasearch methedology

Disseminating research findings: what should researchers do? A systematic scoping review of conceptual frameworks

• Paul M Wilson 1 ,
• Mark Petticrew 2 ,
• Mike W Calnan 3 &
• Irwin Nazareth 4  

Implementation Science volume  5 , Article number:  91 ( 2010 ) Cite this article

85k Accesses

138 Citations

20 Altmetric

Metrics details

Addressing deficiencies in the dissemination and transfer of research-based knowledge into routine clinical practice is high on the policy agenda both in the UK and internationally.

However, there is lack of clarity between funding agencies as to what represents dissemination. Moreover, the expectations and guidance provided to researchers vary from one agency to another. Against this background, we performed a systematic scoping to identify and describe any conceptual/organising frameworks that could be used by researchers to guide their dissemination activity.

We searched twelve electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO), the reference lists of included studies and of individual funding agency websites to identify potential studies for inclusion. To be included, papers had to present an explicit framework or plan either designed for use by researchers or that could be used to guide dissemination activity. Papers which mentioned dissemination (but did not provide any detail) in the context of a wider knowledge translation framework, were excluded. References were screened independently by at least two reviewers; disagreements were resolved by discussion. For each included paper, the source, the date of publication, a description of the main elements of the framework, and whether there was any implicit/explicit reference to theory were extracted. A narrative synthesis was undertaken.

Thirty-three frameworks met our inclusion criteria, 20 of which were designed to be used by researchers to guide their dissemination activities. Twenty-eight included frameworks were underpinned at least in part by one or more of three different theoretical approaches, namely persuasive communication, diffusion of innovations theory, and social marketing.

Conclusions

There are currently a number of theoretically-informed frameworks available to researchers that can be used to help guide their dissemination planning and activity. Given the current emphasis on enhancing the uptake of knowledge about the effects of interventions into routine practice, funders could consider encouraging researchers to adopt a theoretically-informed approach to their research dissemination.

Peer Review reports

Healthcare resources are finite, so it is imperative that the delivery of high-quality healthcare is ensured through the successful implementation of cost-effective health technologies. However, there is growing recognition that the full potential for research evidence to improve practice in healthcare settings, either in relation to clinical practice or to managerial practice and decision making, is not yet realised. Addressing deficiencies in the dissemination and transfer of research-based knowledge to routine clinical practice is high on the policy agenda both in the UK [ 1 – 5 ] and internationally [ 6 ].

As interest in the research to practice gap has increased, so too has the terminology used to describe the approaches employed [ 7 , 8 ]. Diffusion, dissemination, implementation, knowledge transfer, knowledge mobilisation, linkage and exchange, and research into practice are all being used to describe overlapping and interrelated concepts and practices. In this review, we have used the term dissemination, which we view as a key element in the research to practice (knowledge translation) continuum. We define dissemination as a planned process that involves consideration of target audiences and the settings in which research findings are to be received and, where appropriate, communicating and interacting with wider policy and health service audiences in ways that will facilitate research uptake in decision-making processes and practice.

Most applied health research funding agencies expect and demand some commitment or effort on the part of grant holders to disseminate the findings of their research. However, there does appear to be a lack of clarity between funding agencies as to what represents dissemination [ 9 ]. Moreover, although most consider dissemination to be a shared responsibility between those funding and those conducting the research, the expectations on and guidance provided to researchers vary from one agency to another [ 9 ].

We have previously highlighted the need for researchers to consider carefully the costs and benefits of dissemination and have raised concerns about the nature and variation in type of guidance issued by funding bodies to their grant holders and applicants [ 10 ]. Against this background, we have performed a systematic scoping review with the following two aims: to identify and describe any conceptual/organising frameworks designed to be used by researchers to guide their dissemination activities; and to identify and describe any conceptual/organising frameworks relating to knowledge translation continuum that provide enough detail on the dissemination elements that researchers could use it to guide their dissemination activities.

The following databases were searched to identify potential studies for inclusion: MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations (1950 to June 2010); EMBASE (1980 to June 2010); CINAHL (1981 to June 2010); PsycINFO (1806 to June 2010); EconLit (1969 to June 2010); Social Services Abstracts (1979 to June 2010); Social Policy and Practice (1890 to June 2010); Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Methodology Register, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Health Technology Assessment Database, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (Cochrane Library 2010: Issue 1).

The search terms were identified through discussion by the research team, by scanning background literature, and by browsing database thesauri. There were no methodological, language, or date restrictions. Details of the database specific search strategies are presented Additional File 1 , Appendix 1.

Citation searches of five articles [ 11 – 15 ] identified prior to the database searches were performed in Science Citation Index (Web of Science), MEDLINE (OvidSP), and Google Scholar (February 2009).

As this review was undertaken as part of a wider project aiming to assess the dissemination activity of UK applied and public health researchers [ 16 ], we searched the websites of 10 major UK funders of health services and public health research. These were the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, the Chief Scientist Office, the Department of Health Policy Research Programme, the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the Medical Research Council (MRC), the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme, the NIHR Service Delivery and Organisation Programme and the Wellcome Trust. We aimed to identify any dissemination/communication frameworks, guides, or plans that were available to grant applicants or holders.

We also interrogated the websites of four key agencies with an established record in the field of dissemination and knowledge transfer. These were the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality ( AHRQ ) , the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation (CHSRF), and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD).

As a number of databases and websites were searched, some degree of duplication resulted. In order to manage this issue, the titles and abstracts of records were downloaded and imported into EndNote bibliographic software, and duplicate records removed.

References were screened independently by two reviewers; those studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded. Where it was not possible to exclude articles based on title and abstract alone, full text versions were obtained and their eligibility was assessed independently by two reviewers. Where disagreements occurred, the opinion of a third reviewer was sought and resolved by discussion and arbitration by a third reviewer.

To be eligible for inclusion, papers needed to either present an explicit framework or plan designed to be used by a researcher to guide their dissemination activity, or an explicit framework or plan that referred to dissemination in the context of a wider knowledge translation framework but that provided enough detail on the dissemination elements that a researcher could then use it. Papers that referred to dissemination in the context of a wider knowledge translation framework, but that did not describe in any detail those process elements relating to dissemination were excluded from the review. A list of excluded papers is included in Additional File 2 , Appendix 2.

For each included paper we recorded the publication date, a description of the main elements of the framework, whether there was any reference to other included studies, and whether there was an explicit theoretical basis to the framework. Included papers that did not make an explicit reference to an underlying theory were re-examined to determine whether any implicit use of theory could be identified. This entailed scrutinising the references and assessing whether any elements from theories identified in other papers were represented in the text. Data from each paper meeting the inclusion criteria were extracted by one researcher and independently checked for accuracy by a second.

A narrative synthesis [ 17 ] of included frameworks was undertaken to present the implicit and explicit theoretical basis of included frameworks and to explore any relationships between them.

Our searches identified 6,813 potentially relevant references (see Figure 1 ). Following review of the titles and abstracts, we retrieved 122 full papers for a more detailed screening. From these, we included 33 frameworks (reported in 44 papers) Publications that did not meet our inclusion criteria are listed in Additional File 2 , Appendix 2.

Identification of conceptual frameworks .

Characteristics of conceptual frameworks designed to be used by researchers

Table 1 summarises in chronological order, twenty conceptual frameworks designed for use by researchers [ 11 , 14 , 15 , 18 – 34 ]. Where we have described elements of frameworks that have been reported across multiple publications, these are referenced in the Table.

Theoretical underpinnings of dissemination frameworks

Thirteen of the twenty included dissemination frameworks were either explicitly or implicitly judged to be based on the Persuasive Communication Matrix [ 35 , 36 ]. Originally derived from a review of the literature of persuasion which sought to operationalise Lasswell's seminal description of persuasive communications as being about 'Who says what in which channel to whom with what effect' [ 37 ]. McGuire argued that there are five variables that influence the impact of persuasive communications. These are the source of communication, the message to be communicated, the channels of communication, the characteristics of the audience (receiver), and the setting (destination) in which the communication is received.

Included frameworks were judged to encompass either three [ 21 , 27 , 29 ], four [ 15 , 20 , 23 , 26 , 28 , 31 , 38 ], or all five [ 11 , 18 , 25 ] of McGuire's five input variables, namely, the source, channel, message, audience, and setting. The earliest conceptual model included in the review explicitly applied McGuire's five input variables to the dissemination of medical technology assessments [ 11 ]. Only one other framework (in its most recent version) explicitly acknowledges McGuire [ 17 ]; the original version acknowledged the influence of Winkler et al . on its approach to conceptualising systematic review dissemination [ 18 ]. The original version of the CRD approach [ 18 , 39 ] is itself referred to by two of the other eight frameworks [ 20 , 23 ]

Diffusion of Innovations theory [ 40 , 41 ] is explicitly cited by eight of the dissemination frameworks [ 11 , 17 , 19 , 22 , 24 , 28 , 29 , 34 ]. Diffusion of Innovations offers a theory of how, why, and at what rate practices or innovations spread through defined populations and social systems. The theory proposes that there are intrinsic characteristics of new ideas or innovations that determine their rate of adoption, and that actual uptake occurs over time via a five-phase innovation-decision process (knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation). The included frameworks are focussed on the knowledge and persuasion stages of the innovation-decision process.

Two of the included dissemination frameworks make reference to Social Marketing [ 42 ]. One briefly discusses the potential application of social and commercial marketing and advertising principles and strategies in the promotion of non-commercial services, ideas, or research-based knowledge [ 22 ]. The other briefly argues that a social marketing approach could take into account a planning process involving 'consumer' oriented research, objective setting, identification of barriers, strategies, and new formats [ 30 ]. However, this framework itself does not represent a comprehensive application of social marketing theory and principles, and instead highlights five factors that are focussed around formatting evidence-based information so that it is clear and appealing by defined target audiences.

Three other distinct dissemination frameworks were included, two of which are based on literature reviews and researcher experience [ 14 , 32 ]. The first framework takes a novel question-based approach and aims to increase researchers' awareness of the type of context information that might prove useful when disseminating knowledge to target audiences [ 14 ]. The second framework presents a model that can be used to identify barriers and facilitators and to design interventions to aid the transfer and utilization of research knowledge [ 32 ]. The final framework is derived from Two Communities Theory [ 43 ] and proposes pragmatic strategies for communicating across conflicting cultures research and policy; it suggests a shift away from simple one-way communication of research to researchers developing collaborative relationships with policy makers [ 33 ].

Characteristics of conceptual frameworks relating to knowledge translation that could be used by researchers to guide their dissemination activities

Table 2 summarises in chronological order the dissemination elements of 13 conceptual frameworks relating to knowledge translation that could be used by researchers to guide their dissemination activities [ 13 , 44 – 55 ].

Only two of the included knowledge translation frameworks were judged to encompass four of McGuire's five variables for persuasive communications [ 45 , 47 ]. One framework [ 45 ] explicitly attributes these variables as being derived from Winkler et al [ 11 ]. The other [ 47 ] refers to strong direct evidence but does not refer to McGuire or any of the other included frameworks.

Diffusion of Innovations theory [ 40 , 41 ] is explicitly cited in eight of the included knowledge translation frameworks [ 13 , 45 – 49 , 52 , 56 ]. Of these, two represent attempts to operationalise and apply the theory, one in the context of evidence-based decision making and practice [ 13 ], and the other to examine how innovations in organisation and delivery of health services spread and are sustained in health service organisations [ 47 , 57 ]. The other frameworks are exclusively based on the theory and are focussed instead on strategies to accelerate the uptake of evidence-based knowledge and or interventions

Two of the included knowledge translation frameworks [ 50 , 53 ] are explicitly based on resource or knowledge-based Theory of the Firm [ 58 , 59 ]. Both frameworks propose that successful knowledge transfer (or competitive advantage) is determined by the type of knowledge to be transferred as well as by the development and deployment of appropriate skills and infrastructure at an organisational level.

Two of the included knowledge translation frameworks purport to be based upon a range of theoretical perspectives. The Coordinated Implementation model is derived from a range of sources, including theories of social influence on attitude change, the Diffusion of Innovations, adult learning, and social marketing [ 45 ]. The Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model was developed using concepts from Diffusion of Innovations, social ecology, as well as the health promotion, quality improvement, and implementation literature [ 52 ].

Three other distinct knowledge translation frameworks were included, all of which are based on a combination of literature reviews and researcher experience [ 44 , 51 , 54 ].

Conceptual frameworks provided by UK funders

Of the websites of the 10 UK funders of health services and public health research, only the ESRC made a dissemination framework available to grant applicants or holders (see Table 1 ) [ 26 ]. A summary version of another included framework is available via the publications section of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation [ 60 ]. However, no reference is made to it in the submission guidance they make available to research applicants.

All of the UK funding bodies made brief references to dissemination in their research grant application guides. These would simply ask applicants to briefly indicate how findings arising from the research will be disseminated (often stating that this should be other than via publication in peer-reviewed journals) so as to promote or facilitate take up by users in the health services.

This systematic scoping review presents to our knowledge the most comprehensive overview of conceptual/organising frameworks relating to research dissemination. Thirty-three frameworks met our inclusion criteria, 20 of which were designed to be used by researchers to guide their dissemination activities. Twenty-eight included frameworks that were underpinned at least in part by one or more of three different theoretical approaches, namely persuasive communication, diffusion of innovations theory, and social marketing.

Our search strategy was deliberately broad, and we searched a number of relevant databases and other sources with no language or publication status restrictions, reducing the chance that some relevant studies were excluded from the review and of publication or language bias. However, we restricted our searches to health and social science databases, and it is possible that searches targeting for example the management or marketing literature may have revealed additional frameworks. In addition, this review was undertaken as part of a project assessing UK research dissemination, so our search for frameworks provided by funding agencies was limited to the UK. It is possible that searches of funders operating in other geographical jurisdictions may have identified other studies. We are also aware that the way in which we have defined the process of dissemination and our judgements as to what constitutes sufficient detail may have resulted in some frameworks being excluded that others may have included or vice versa. Given this, and as an aid to transparency, we have included the list of excluded papers as Additional File 2 , Appendix 2 so as to allow readers to assess our, and make their own, judgements on the literature identified.

Despite these potential limitations, in this review we have identified 33 frameworks that are available and could be used to help guide dissemination planning and activity. By way of contrast, a recent systematic review of the knowledge transfer and exchange literature (with broader aims and scope) [ 61 ] identified five organising frameworks developed to guide knowledge transfer and exchange initiatives (defined as involving more than one way communications and involving genuine interaction between researchers and target audiences) [ 13 – 15 , 62 , 63 ]. All were identified by our searches, but only three met our specific inclusion criteria of providing sufficient dissemination process detail [ 13 – 15 ]. One reviewed methods for assessment of research utilisation in policy making [ 62 ], whilst the other reviewed knowledge mapping as a tool for understanding the many knowledge creation and translation resources and processes in a health system [ 63 ].

There is a large amount of theoretical convergence among the identified frameworks. This all the more striking given the wide range of theoretical approaches that could be applied in the context of research dissemination [ 64 ], and the relative lack of cross-referencing between the included frameworks. Three distinct but interlinked theories appear to underpin (at least in part) 28 of the included frameworks. There has been some criticism of health communications that are overly reliant on linear messenger-receiver models and do not draw upon other aspects of communication theory [ 65 ]. Although researcher focused, the included frameworks appear more participatory than simple messenger-receiver models, and there is recognition of the importance of context and emphasis on the key to successful dissemination being dependent on the need for interaction with the end user.

As we highlight in the introduction, there is recognition among international funders both of the importance of and their role in the dissemination of research [ 9 ]. Given the current political emphasis on reducing deficiencies in the uptake of knowledge about the effects of interventions into routine practice, funders could be making and advocating more systematic use of conceptual frameworks in the planning of research dissemination.

Rather than asking applicants to briefly indicate how findings arising from their proposed research will be disseminated (as seems to be the case in the UK), funding agencies could consider encouraging grant applicants to adopt a theoretically-informed approach to their research dissemination. Such an approach could be made a conditional part of any grant application process; an organising framework such as those described in this review could be used to demonstrate the rationale and understanding underpinning their proposed plans for dissemination. More systematic use of conceptual frameworks would then provide opportunities to evaluate across a range of study designs whether utilising any of the identified frameworks to guide research dissemination does in fact enhance the uptake of research findings in policy and practice.

There are currently a number of theoretically-informed frameworks available to researchers that could be used to help guide their dissemination planning and activity. Given the current emphasis on enhancing the uptake of knowledge about the effects of interventions into routine practice, funders could consider encouraging researchers to adopt a theoretically informed approach to their research dissemination.

Cooksey D: A review of UK health research funding. London: Stationery Office. 2006

Google Scholar  

Darzi A: High quality care for all: NHS next stage review final report. 2008, London: Department of Health

Department of Health: Best Research for Best Health: A new national health research strategy. 2006, London: Department of Health

National Institute for Health Research: Delivering Health Research. National Institute for Health Research Progress Report 2008/09. London: Department of Health. 2009

Tooke JC: Report of the High Level Group on Clinical Effectiveness A report to Sir Liam Donaldson Chief Medical Officer. London: Department of Health. 2007

World Health Organization: World report on knowledge for better health: strengthening health systems. Geneva: World Health Organization. 2004

Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, Straus SE, Tetroe J, Caswell W, Robinson N: Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map?. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006, 26: 13-24.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

World Health Organization: Bridging the 'know-do' gap: meeting on knowledge translation in global health 10-12 October 2005. 2005, Geneva: World Health Organization

Tetroe JM, Graham ID, Foy R, Robinson N, Eccles MP, Wensing M, Durieux P, Légaré F, Nielson CP, Adily A, Ward JE, Porter C, Shea B, Grimshaw JM: Health research funding agencies' support and promotion of knowledge translation: an international study. Milbank Q. 2008, 86: 125-55.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Wilson PM, Petticrew M, Calnan MW, Nazareth I: Why promote the findings of single research studies?. BMJ. 2008, 336: 722-

Winkler JD, Lohr KN, Brook RH: Persuasive communication and medical technology assessment. Arch Intern Med. 1985, 145: 314-17.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Lomas J: Diffusion, Dissemination, and Implementation: Who Should Do What. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1993, 703: 226-37.

Dobbins M, Ciliska D, Cockerill R, Barnsley J, DiCenso A: A framework for the dissemination and utilization of research for health-care policy and practice. Online J Knowl Synth Nurs. 2002, 9: 7-

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Jacobson N, Butterill D, Goering P: Development of a framework for knowledge translation: understanding user context. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2003, 8: 94-9.

Lavis JN, Robertson D, Woodside JM, McLeod CB, Abelson J, Knowledge Transfer Study G: How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers?. Milbank Q. 2003, 81: 221-48.

Wilson PM, Petticrew M, Calnan MW, Nazareth I: Does dissemination extend beyond publication: a survey of a cross section of public funded research in the UK. Implement Sci. 2010, 5: 61-

Centre for Reviews and Dissemination: Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD's guidance for carrying out or commissioning reviews. 2009, York: University of York, 3

NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination: Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD's guidance for carrying out or commissioning reviews. York: University of York. 1994

National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research: A Review of the Literature on Dissemination and Knowledge Utilization. Austin, TX: National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research, Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. 1996

Hughes M, McNeish D, Newman T, Roberts H, Sachdev D: What works? Making connections: linking research and practice. A review by Barnardo's Research and Development Team. Ilford: Barnardo's. 2000

Harmsworth S, Turpin S, TQEF National Co-ordination Team, Rees A, Pell G, Bridging the Gap Innovations Project: Creating an Effective Dissemination Strategy. An Expanded Interactive Workbook for Educational Development Projects. Centre for Higher Education Practice: Open University. 2001

Herie M, Martin GW: Knowledge diffusion in social work: a new approach to bridging the gap. Soc Work. 2002, 47: 85-95.

Scullion PA: Effective dissemination strategies. Nurse Res. 2002, 10: 65-77.

Farkas M, Jette AM, Tennstedt S, Haley SM, Quinn V: Knowledge dissemination and utilization in gerontology: an organizing framework. Gerontologist. 2003, 43 (Spec 1): 47-56.

Canadian Health Services Research Foundation: Communication Notes. Developing a dissemination plan Ottawa: Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. 2004

Economic and Social Research Council: Communications strategy: a step-by-step guide. Swindon: Economic and Social Research Council. 2004

European Commission. European Research: A guide to successful communication. 2004, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

Carpenter D, Nieva V, Albaghal T, Sorra J: Development of a Planning Tool to Guide Dissemination of Research Results. Advances in Patient Safety: From Research to Implementation, Programs, Tools and Practices. 2005, Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 4:

Bauman AE, Nelson DE, Pratt M, Matsudo V, Schoeppe S: Dissemination of physical activity evidence, programs, policies, and surveillance in the international public health arena. Am J Prev Med. 2006, 31 (1 Suppl): S57-S65.

Formoso G, Marata AM, Magrini N: Social marketing: should it be used to promote evidence-based health information?. Soc Sci Med. 2007, 64: 949-53.

Zarinpoush F, Sychowski SV, Sperling J: Effective Knowledge Transfer and Exchange: A Framework. Toronto: Imagine Canada. 2007

Majdzadeh R, Sadighi J, Nejat S, Mahani AS, Gholami J: Knowledge translation for research utilization: design of a knowledge translation model at Tehran University of Medical Sciences. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2008, 28: 270-7.

Friese B, Bogenschneider K: The voice of experience: How social scientists communicate family research to policymakers. Fam Relat. 2009, 58: 229-43.

Yuan CT, Nembhard IM, Stern AF, Brush JE, Krumholz HM, Bradley EH: Blueprint for the dissemination of evidence-based practices in health care. Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2010, 86: 1-16.

McGuire WJ: The nature of attitudes and attitude change. Handbook of social psychology. Edited by: Lindzey G, Aronsen E. 1969, Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley Publishing, 136-314.

McGuire WJ: Input and output variables currently promising for constructing persuasive communications. Public communication campaigns. Edited by: Rice R, Atkin C. 2001, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 22-48. 3

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Lasswell HD: The structure and function of communication in society. The communication of ideas. Edited by: Bryson L. 1948, New York: Harper and Row, 37-51.

National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research: Developing an Effective Dissemination Plan. 2001, Austin, Tx: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL)

Freemantle N, Watt I: Dissemination: implementing the findings of research. Health Libr Rev. 1994, 11: 133-7.

Rogers EM: The diffusion of innovations. 1962, New York: Free Press

Rogers EM: Diffusion of innovations. 2003, New York, London: Free Press, 5

Kotler P, Zaltman G: Social Marketing: An Approach to Planned Social Change. J Market. 1971, 35: 3-12.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Caplan N: The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization. Am Behav Sci. 1979, 22: 459-70.

Article   Google Scholar  

Funk SG, Tornquist EM, Champagne MT: A model for improving the dissemination of nursing research. West J Nurs Res. 1989, 11: 361-72.

Lomas J: Teaching old (and not so old) docs new tricks: effective ways to implement research findings. 1993, CHEPA working paper series No 93-4. Hamiltion, Ont: McMaster University

Elliott SJ, O'Loughlin J, Robinson K, Eyles J, Cameron R, Harvey D, Raine K, Gelskey D, Canadian Heart Health Dissemination Project Strategic and Research Advisory Groups: Conceptualizing dissemination research and activity: the case of the Canadian Heart Health Initiative. Health Educ Behav. 2003, 30: 267-82.

Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Bate P, Macfarlane , Kyriakidou O, Peacock R: How to spread good ideas. A systematic review of the literature on diffusion, dissemination and sustainability of innovations in health service delivery and organisation. London: National Co-ordinating Centre for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation (NCCSDO). 2004

Green LW, Orleans C, Ottoson JM, Cameron R, Pierce JP, Bettinghaus EP: Inferring strategies for disseminating physical activity policies, programs, and practices from the successes of tobacco control. Am J Prev Med. 2006, 31 (1 Suppl): S66-S81.

Owen N, Glanz K, Sallis JF, Kelder SH: Evidence-based approaches to dissemination and diffusion of physical activity interventions. Am J Prev Med. 2006, 31 (1 Suppl): S35-S44.

Landry R, Amara N, Ouimet M: Determinants of Knowledge Transfer: Evidence from Canadian University Researchers in Natural Sciences and Engineering. J Technol Transfer. 2007, 32: 561-92.

Baumbusch JL, Kirkham SR, Khan KB, McDonald H, Semeniuk P, Tan E, Anderson JM: Pursuing common agendas: a collaborative model for knowledge translation between research and practice in clinical settings. Res Nurs Health. 2008, 31: 130-40.

Feldstein AC, Glasgow RE: A practical, robust implementation and sustainability model (PRISM) for integrating research findings into practice. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2008, 34: 228-43.

Clinton M, Merritt KL, Murray SR: Using corporate universities to facilitate knowledge transfer and achieve competitive advantage: An exploratory model based on media richness and type of knowledge to be transferred. International Journal of Knowledge Management. 2009, 5: 43-59.

Mitchell P, Pirkis J, Hall J, Haas M: Partnerships for knowledge exchange in health services research, policy and practice. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2009, 14: 104-11.

Ward V, House A, Hamer S: Developing a framework for transferring knowledge into action: a thematic analysis of the literature. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2009, 14: 156-64.

Ward V, Smith S, Carruthers S, House A, Hamer S: Knowledge Brokering. Exploring the process of transferring knowledge into action Leeds: University of Leeds. 2010

Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane , Bate P, Kyriakidou O: Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Millbank Q. 2004, 82: 581-629.

Wernerfelt B: A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Manage J. 1984, 5: 171-80.

Grant R: Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Manage J. 1996, 17: 109-22.

Joseph Rowntree Foundation: Findings: Linking research and practice. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. 2000

Mitton C, Adair CE, McKenzie E, Patten SB, Waye Perry B: Knowledge transfer and exchange: review and synthesis of the literature. Milbank Q. 2007, 85: 729-68.

Hanney S, Gonzalez-Block M, Buxton M, Kogan M: The utilisation of health research in policy-making: concepts, examples and methods of assessment. Health Res Policy Syst. 2003, 1: 2-

Ebener S, Khan A, Shademani R, Compernolle L, Beltran M, Lansang M, Lippman M: Knowledge mapping as a technique to support knowledge translation. Bull World Health Organ. 2006, 84: 636-42.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Grol R, Bosch M, Hulscher M, Eccles M, Wensing M: Planning and studying improvement in patient care: the use of theoretical perspectives. Milbank Q. 2007, 85: 93-138.

Kuruvilla S, Mays N: Reorienting health-research communication. Lancet. 2005, 366: 1416-18.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This review was undertaken as part of a wider project funded by the MRC Population Health Sciences Research Network (Ref: PHSRN 11). The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors alone.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, YO10 5DD, UK

Paul M Wilson

Social and Environmental Health Department, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, WC1E 7HT, UK

Mark Petticrew

School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research, University of Kent, CT2 7NF, UK

Mike W Calnan

MRC General Practice Research Framework, University College London, NW1 2ND, UK

Irwin Nazareth

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul M Wilson .

Additional information

Competing interests.

Paul Wilson is an Associate Editor of Implementation Science. All decisions on this manuscript were made by another senior editor. Paul Wilson works for, and has contributed to the development of the CRD framework which is included in this review. The author(s) declare that they have no other competing interests.

Authors' contributions

All authors contributed to the conception, design, and analysis of the review. All authors were involved in the writing of the first and all subsequent versions of the paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Paul Wilson is the guarantor.

Electronic supplementary material

13012_2010_305_moesm1_esm.doc.

Additional file 1: Appendix 1: Database search strategies. This file includes details of the database specific search strategies used in the review. (DOC 39 KB)

13012_2010_305_MOESM2_ESM.DOC

Additional file 2: Appendix 2: Full-text papers assessed for eligibility but excluded from the review. This file includes details of full-text papers assessed for eligibility but excluded from the review. (DOC 52 KB)

Authors’ original submitted files for images

Below are the links to the authors’ original submitted files for images.

Authors’ original file for figure 1

Rights and permissions.

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Wilson, P.M., Petticrew, M., Calnan, M.W. et al. Disseminating research findings: what should researchers do? A systematic scoping review of conceptual frameworks. Implementation Sci 5 , 91 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-91

Download citation

Received : 04 January 2010

Accepted : 22 November 2010

Published : 22 November 2010

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-91

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Knowledge Translation
• Social Marketing
• Dissemination Activity
• Research Dissemination
• Persuasive Communication

View archived comments (1)

Implementation Science

ISSN: 1748-5908

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

• No category

Research-Methodology-MCQ

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

You can add this document to your study collection(s)

Add this document to saved

You can add this document to your saved list

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib

(For complaints, use another form )

Input it if you want to receive answer

Engineering interview questions, Mcqs, Objective Questions,Class Notes,Seminor topics,Lab Viva Pdf free download. CIVIL | Mechanical | CSE | EEE | ECE | IT | Chemical Online Quiz Tests for Freshers.

300+ top research methodology mcqs and answers quiz, research methodology multiple choice questions.

1. The arithmetic mean cannot be computed for ordinal scale data. (True / False) Answer: True

2. Branded shirts are more expensive than unbranded shirts – this is an example of effective components. (True/False) Answer: False

3. The ___ scale measurement has a natural zero. Answer: Ratio

4. The difference between the score on the ___ scale does not have a meaningful interpretation. Answer: Ordinal

5. Coding and analysis of attitudinal data obtained through the use of a pure graphic rating scale can be done very quickly. (True/False) Answer: False

6. A comparative rating scale attempts to provide a common frame of reference to all respondents. (True/False) Answer: True

7. The Likert scale is a single-item scale. (True/False) Answer: False

8. The Likert scale is a balanced rating scale with an ___ number of categories and a neutral point. Answer: Odd

9. In the ___ scale, if an attribute is twice as important as some other attribute it receives twice as many points. Answer: Constant sum rating

10. A scale is said to be valid if it measures what it is supposed to measure. (True/False) Answer: True

11. A scale is said to be reliable if it is free from systematic errors. (True/False) Answer: False

12. The ___ of a scale can be increased by adding more questions to it. Answer: Sensitivity

13. A focus group discussion generally involves a ___ who steers the discussion on the topic under study. Answer: Moderator

14. Online focus groups are conducted in ___. Answer: Web-based chat rooms

15. The ideal number of participants in a focus group discussion is (a5 2–6 (b) 6–10 (c) 8–12 (d) 10–15 Answer: (c) 8–12

16. Special respondent sub-strata who are passionately involved with a brand or product category are known as (a) Brand-obsessive group (b) Online focus group (c) Special focus group (d) Brand ambassadors Answer: (a) Brand-obsessive group

17. The interview method is a one-to-one interaction between ___ and ___. Answer: Investigator/interviewer, the interviewee

18. The ___ interview has no defined guidelines. Answer: Unstructured

19. When interviews are conducted with the help of the computer they are called ___. Answer: Computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI)

20. The questionnaire can be used to collect ___ data from a ___ of subjects. Answer: Primary, sample

21. The questionnaire method follows a predetermined ___. Answer: Sequence

22. Exploratory studies should most often make use of the ___ method Answer: Unstructured interview

23. The questionnaire should ___ the respondent and result in a ___ response. Answer: Encourage, meaningful

24. In case the population under study is widely scattered, one makes use of the ___. Answer: Questionnaire

25. In case the population is illiterate it is best to use the ___. Answer: Schedule

26. The formalized-unconcealed questionnaire is the most difficult to interpret. (True/False) Answer: False

27. The process of questionnaire design is called the schedule (True/False) Answer: False

28. The non-formalized, concealed questionnaire is the most frequently used questionnaire. (True/False) Answer: False

29. Sampling control is highest in (a) A web-based survey (b) E-mail based survey (c) Schedule (d) Mail/fax survey Answer: (c) Schedule

30. The most cost-effective questionnaire administration method is through (a) Web-based (b) Schedule (c) Telephone survey (d) Mail survey Answer: (a) Web-based

31. Response rate is highest in a (a) Mail interview (b) Schedule (c) Email survey (d) Web-based survey Answer: (b) Schedule

32. Interviewer bias is high in a telephonic survey. (True/False) Answer: True

33. Qualifying questions are also termed as filter questions. (True/False) Answer: True

34. ‘Are you a vegetarian?—Yes/No’ is an example of an open-ended question. (True/False) Answer: False

35. ‘Do you sing and dance?’ is an example of a double-barrelled question. (True/False) Answer: True

36. ‘Do you not think that all fairness creams make false claims? –Yes/No’ is an example of a loaded question. (True/False) Answer: False

37. The questionnaire has many advantages. Which of these is not one of them? (a) Adaptability (b) Anonymity (c) Fast and economical (d) Applicable to all sections of society Answer: (d) Applicable to all sections of society

38. If the investigator distributes the questionnaire to his friends and acquaintances or if there is self-selection of the subjects, it could lead to (a) Lower response (b) Higher response (c) Skewed sample response (d) None of the above Answer: (c) Skewed sample response

39. The chance of researcher bias is very ___ in the questionnaire method. Answer: low

40. The difference between the sample result and the results obtained through a census using the identical procedure is known as sampling error. (True/False) Answer: True

41. A population that is being sampled is also called the universe. (True/False) Answer: True

42. Which of these is not a sampling frame? (a) List of registered voters in a constituency (b) Subscribers listed in a telephone directory (c) The total number of students registered with a university (d) 30 students who are surveyed of a class of 150 MBA students Answer: (d) 30 students who are surveyed of a class of 150 MBA students

43. A subset of the population is called (a) Element (b) Sampling unit (c) Sample (d) Sampling frame Answer: (c) Sample

44. A judgmental sample provides a better representation of the population than a probability sample. (True/False) Answer: True

45. Non-probability methods are those in which the sample units are chosen purposefully. (True/False) Answer: True

46. The criteria for stratification should be related to the ___ of the study. Answer: Objectives

47. Only the initial sample unit is chosen randomly in a ___ sampling Answer: Systematic

48. For a 90% confidence, the value of Z would be ___. Answer: 1.645

49. The size of the sample depends upon the size of the population. (True/False) Answer: False

50. The most commonly used approach for determining the size of the sample is the ___ approach covered under inferential statistics. Answer: Confidence interval

51. The size of the sample is directly proportional to the ___ in the population and the value of Z for a confidence interval. Answer: variability

52. The editing process is carried out at two levels, the first of these is field editing and the second is ___. Answer: Central in-house editing

53. Going back to the respondent to check any errors during questionnaire administration is known as ___. Answer: Backtracking

54. Backtracking is best suited for industrial surveys. (True/False) Answer: True

55. Plug value refers to the fudged value that an investigator might put for a missing response. (True/False) Answer: False

56. The smallest code entry a researcher makes in a codebook is a field. (True/False) Answer: True

57. Several fields together can be clubbed into a record. (True/False) Answer: True

58. In a data matrix every column represents a single case. (True/False) Answer: False

59. All categories formulated for data entry must be mutually exclusive. (True/False) Answer: True

60. The process of identifying and denoting a numeral to the responses given by a respondent is called___ Answer: Coding

61. In case the question is a Likert type question and it has agreement/ disagreement on a five-point scale, the number of corresponding columns in the codebook would be ___ Answer: One

62. Test tabulation is conducted on open-ended questions. (True/False) Answer: False

63. For classifying nominal data one can tabulate using class intervals. (True/False) Answer: False

64. Numerical data, like the ratio scale data, can be classified into (a) Class intervals (b) Codes (c) Fields (d) Files Answer: (a) Class intervals

65. 10–15 years; 16–20 years; 21 years and beyond is an example of (a) Inclusive class interval (b) Exclusive class interval (c) Class interval (d) None of the above Answer: (b) Inclusive class interval

66. Median can be computed for ordinal scale data. (True/False) Answer: True

67. To carry out ___, the sample should be drawn at random. Answer: Inferential analysis

68. The standard deviation as a measure of dispersion is independent of units of measurement. (True/False) Answer: False

69. The range could be obtained from interval scale data. (True/False) Answer: True

70. The positive square root of ___ is called standard deviation. Answer: Variance

71. To compare the variability of two distributions, ___ can be used. Answer: Coefficient of variation

72. The correlation coefficient can assume any value between 0 and 1. (True/False) Answer: False

73. High association between two variables does not imply cause and effect relationship. (True/False) Answer: True

74. In a cross table, the percentages should be computed in the direction of the ___ variable. Answer: Independent

75. The first step in computing the percentages in a cross table is to identify ___ and ___ variables. Answer: Dependent, independent

76. In basic research, the context is vast and the time period is flexible. (True/ false) Answer: True

77. The research that is especially carried out to test and validate the study hypotheses is termed (a) Fundamental resaeach (b) Applied research (c) Conclusive research (d) Exploratory research Answer: (c) Conclusive research

78. The research studies that explore the effect of one thing on another and more specifically, the effect of one variable on another are known as (a) Causal research (b) Applied research (c) Conclusive research (d) Exploratory research Answer: (a) Causal research

79. Every research study always begins with a hypothesis. (True/ false) Answer: False

80. The group of individuals from whom one needs to collect data for the study is called the sample. (True/ false) Answer: True

81. The assumption about the expected result of the research is called the ___. Answer: Hypothesis

82. The data collection methods may be classified into ___ and ___ data methods. Answer: Primary, secondary

83. Marketing department of a business organization carries out researches related to: (a) Product (b) Pricing (c) Promotion (d) All the above Answer: (d) All the above

84. Demand forecasting, and quality assurance and management are part of (a) Personnel and human resource management (b) Marketing function (c) Financial and accounting research (d) Production and operations management Answer: (a) Production and operations management

85. The research study must follow a ___ plan for investigation. Answer: Sequential

86. One of the most important aspects of a research study is that it must be ___ if one follows similar conditions. Answer: Replicable

87. The management decision problem must be reduced to a ___ problem. Answer: Research

88. A research problem can be defined as ___ in the decision makers’ existing body of knowledge which inhibits efficient decision making. Answer: A gap

89. Simple research problems usually test ___ relationships. Answer: Linear

90. Complex problems look at the interrelationship between ___ variables. Answer: Multiple

91. The management problem is a difficulty face by the ___ Answer: Decision maker

92. The management research problem has to be converted into a ___ before it can be tested. Answer: Research problem

93. The management decision problem can be tested, that is, subjected to research inquiry. (True/ False) Answer: False

94. How can students be made to learn the course on research methodology is a research problem. (True/False) Answer: False

95. Which of these is not a step in the problem identification process? (a) Discussion with subject experts (b) Review of existing literature (c) Theoretical foundation and model building (d) Management decision making Answer: (d) Management decision making

96. The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2001) and the Chicago Manual of Style (1993) are: (a) Well known works on research (b) Referencing style guides in management (c) Publishing journals (d) Management journals Answer: (b) Referencing style guides in management

97. A valuable source of problem formulation is based on informal interviews conducted with industry experts. (True/False) Answer: True

98. Formulation of the research problem does not require primary data collection. (True/False) Answer: False

99. The causal variable is also called the ___ variable. Answer: Independent

100. The ___ variable is also called the effect. Answer: Dependent

101. If one evaluates the impact of the pedagogy of Prof. N S on the research methods course grades of students, then Prof. N S, here, is the unit of analysis. (True/False) Answer: False

102. Moderating variables are the ones that have a strong effect on the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. (True/False) Answer: True

103. The hypotheses are always made in question form. (True/False) Answer: False

104. The hypotheses must be measurable and quantifiable. (True/False) Answer: True

105. The hypotheses that a talk about the relation between two or more variables is called___ hypotheses. Answer: Relational

106. If one is making a proposition about the magnitude or behavior of a particular population, we call it a ___ hypothesis. Answer: Descriptive

107. A formal document that presents the research objectives, design of achieving these objectives, and the expected outcomes/deliverables of the study is called (a) Research design (b) Research proposal (c) Research hypothesis (d) Research report Answer: (b) Research proposal

108. In a research proposal, the time-bound dissemination of the study with the major phases of the research has to be presented using the (a) CPM (b) GANTT charts (c) PERT charts (d) All the above Answer: (d) All the above

109. Academic proposals require extensive literature review. (True/False) Answer: True

110. External organizational proposals are generally conducted by external research agencies. (True/False) Answer: True

111. The execution details of the research question to be investigated are referred to as the ___. Answer: Research design

112. Research designs come ___ the problem formulation stage. Answer: After

113. Researcher design is the same as the research method. (True/false) Answer: False

114. The formulated design must ensure: (a) Converting the research question and the hypotheses into measurable variables (b) Specifying the process to complete the above task (c) Specifying the ‘control mechanism(s)’ (d) All the above Answer: (d) All the above

115. Previously collected findings in facts and figures which have been authenticated and published are referred to as ___. Answer: Secondary data sources

116. A carefully selected small set of individuals representative of the larger respondent population under study is called a ___. Answer: Focus group

117. The case study method is generally focused on a single unit of analysis. (True/False) Answer: True

118. Expert opinion survey and respondent group discussions together form a two-tiered research design. (True/False) Answer: False

119. A research study that tracks the profile of a typical social networking user is an example of an exploratory research design. (True/False) Answer: False

120. If one wants to assess changes in investment behavior of the general public over time, the best design available to the researcher is a longitudinal design. (True/False) Answer: True

121. A study to analyze the profile of the supporters of Anna Hazare would need a cross-sectional research design. (True/False) Answer: True

122. Married couples are the unit of analysis in a cohort analysis. (True/False) Answer: False

123. Different groups of people tested over a single stretch of time is a special characteristic of a longitudinal design. (True/False) Answer: False

124. The research variable in a longitudinal research design is studied over fixed intervals in time. (True/False) Answer: True

125. Descriptive designs do not require any quantitative statistical analysis. (True/False) Answer: False

126. ___ validity refers to the generalization of the sample results to that of the population. Answer: External

127. Test units are selected at random in a quasi-experimental design. (True/ False) Answer: False

128. There cannot be more than two independent variables in a factorial experiment. (True/False) Answer: False

129. There is no possibility of error in true experimental research design. (True/False) Answer: False

130. In the true experimental design and statistical design, the respondents are selected at random which may not be the case in real life. (True/False) Answer: True

131. The data that is always collected first in a research study is called ___ data. Answer: Primary

132. ___ data is not always specific to the research problem under study. Answer: Secondary

133. Census data is an example of the primary data source. (True/False) Answer: False

134. Sampling frame of the respondent population is an example of secondary data. (True/False) Answer: True

135. Primary data methods have a significant time and cost advantage over secondary data. (True/False) Answer: False

136. Cash register receipt is an example of ___ secondary data sources. Answer: Internal

137. Customer grievance data available with the company is an important source of ___ data. Answer: Secondary

138. Statistical abstracts of India are prepared by ___. Answer: Central Statistical Organization

139. The ___ prepares the National Sample Survey (NSS). Answer: Ministry of Planning

140. Poor’s Statistical Services is a government publication on the people below the poverty line.(True/False) Answer: False

141. Syndicate sources are periodic in nature.(True/False) Answer: True

142. Observation is a direct method of collecting (a) Primary data (b) Secondary data (c) Both (d) Published data Answer: (a) Primary data

143. Observing the remains or the leftovers of the consumers’ basket is referred to as (a) Structured observation (b) Unstructured observation (c) Trace analysis (d) Mechanical observation Answer: (c) Trace analysis

144. In case one wants to know why some people use plastic bags for carrying their groceries even after the imposition of a ban on plastic bags by the Delhi Government, one may use the observation method to collect the data. (True/False) Answer: False

145. Usually the observation method entails that the observation is disguised, i.e., carried out without the respondent’s knowledge. (True/False) Answer: False

146. The researcher who is conducting the research must be ___ and neutral in approach. Answer: Objective

147. Research always requires a ___ and ___ method of inquiry Answer: Structured, sequential

148. Research is done for ___ existing theories or arriving at new ___ Answer: Proving, models

149. An important aspect of business research is its ___ assisting nature. Answer: Decision

150. Applied research is the kind of research where one needs to apply specific statistical procedures. (True/ false) Answer: False

Research Methodology Objective Questions with Answers Pdf Download

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Not the last word: dissemination strategies for patient-centred research in nursing

Teresa l. hagan.

1 Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, Yawkey 10B, Boston, MA 02114

Karen Schmidt

2 University of Pittsburgh Clinical & Translational Science Institute

Guyanna R. Ackison

3 University of Pittsburgh School of Nursing, 415 Victoria Building, 3500 Victoria Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15261

Megan Murphy

4 National Ovarian Cancer Coalition, 6507 Wilkins Avenue, Suite 100, Pittsburgh, PA 15217

Jennifer R. Jones

5 Community PARTners Core, University of Pittsburgh Clinical & Translational Science Institute, 4200 Forbes Avenue, Forbes Tower Suite 7057, Pittsburgh, PA 15260

Introduction

Research results hold value for many stakeholders including researchers, patient populations, advocacy organizations, and community groups. The aim of this study is to describe our research team’s systematic process to designing a dissemination strategy for a completed research study.

Methodology

We organized a dissemination event to feed the results of our study to participants and stakeholders and collect feedback regarding our study. We applied the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s dissemination framework to guide the development of the event and collected participant feedback during the event.

We describe our dissemination strategy along with attendees’ feedback and suggestions for our research as an example of a way to design a patient- and community-focused dissemination. We explain the details of our dissemination strategy including (a) our process of reporting a large research study into a stakeholder event, (b) stakeholder feedback collected at the event, and (c) the translation of feedback into our research team’s research. We also describe challenges encountered during the dissemination process and ways to handle issues such as logistics, funding, and staff.

Conclusions

This analysis provides key insights and practical advice for researchers looking for innovative ways to disseminate their findings within the lay and scientific communities.

INTRODUCTION

The research dissemination process is a crucial aspect of any study, especially research that directly involves the community. ( Chen et al., 2010 ) The knowledge produced through systematic investigations (a) informs the development of knowledge within the scientific field; (b) ensures that the study’s methods, analysis, and conclusions are open to scientific and public scrutiny; and (c) guarantees that those with a vested interest in the research understand and find benefit from the study’s findings. The Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) Statement sets guidelines for ethical ways of disseminating research, stating that dissemination “honors the altruistic motivations of patient-subjects,” that participants are “entitled to know the results of the research their enrollment made possible,” and that dissemination is “consistent with the duty to share new knowledge.” ( Mann, 2005 ) While peer-reviewed journals, professional conferences, and professional communities remain excellent mechanisms by which to deliver results to the scientific community, researchers should capitalize on the opportunity to bolster their professional objectives by distributing research results widely to all stakeholders. ( Chambers and Azrin, 2013 )

As nurse researchers, we must acknowledge the value of our research across multiple audiences. ( Timmons, 2015 ) We must strive to appreciate the potential impacts of our research for study participants, patient populations, community organizations, and policy organizations alike. Our scientific research may be valuable in ways not originally intended by our scientific question, and the dissemination process and planning of future research is an ideal time in which to engage these stakeholders. ( Anderson et al., 2014 )

Our research team recently experienced such a crossroads at the end of a national, cross-sectional study among adult females with a history of cancer. Our parent study aimed to develop a measure of patient self-advocacy to assess their ability to get their needs met in the face of challenge. We believe that this concept is crucial in the current climate of ongoing health inequities ( Adler et al., 2016 ; Lyratzopoulos et al., 2013 ), increasingly complex medical care ( Collins et al., 2009 ; Reyna et al., 2015 ), and vested interests in promoting patient engagement in their health care decisions ( Frank et al., 2015 ). We decided to disseminate the results of our study not only to our participants, but to wider community audiences who had vested interests in discussing our results and imaging potential future steps. In this way, we could both share our results and build community with like-minded individuals and community partners interested in addressing the need for patient self-advocacy.

The purpose of our one-time dissemination strategy and activities was to inform, empower, and engage a multitude of groups interested in improving the health of women with cancer. This analysis is meant to give practical and translational guidance to researchers who are interested in disseminating their research in novel ways, and to stakeholders who are interested in partnering with researchers in the scientific process.

METHODOLOGY

Parent study.

We sought to disseminate our mixed-mode, cross-sectional survey study testing the psychometric properties of a new measure of self-advocacy among female cancer survivors. ( Authors A ; Authors B ) This Self-Advocacy Study took three and a half years to complete and was based on qualitative pilot work describing how patients define and enact self-advocacy. ( Authors C ) We recruited women locally from the western Pennsylvania area as well as nationally through cancer-related advocacy groups to complete a battery of paper or online questionnaires about their health history, cancer- and treatment-related symptoms, beliefs about their health, and personality traits. Inclusion criteria for this parent study included being female, having a previous diagnosis of an invasive type of cancer, and being able to read and write in English. Participants ( N =347) were recruited nationally and locally from two patient research and tumor registries, cancer clinics, and seven advocacy organizations. This study received human subjects approval from the University of Pittsburgh Institutional Review Board.

While we did not design this study using community-based participatory research principles, we collected input from women with cancer, advocacy organizations, and other stakeholders at all stages of the Self-Advocacy Study. We wanted to know stakeholders’ preferences and attitudes about patient self-advocacy, the design and implementation of the study, and potential uses of a self-advocacy scale we were developing. We met with leaders from the patient registries, cancer clinics, and advocacy organizations to discuss the study and potential collaborations before, during, and after the study ended. As a measure of trust-building and collaboration, we promised each of our recruitment sites that we would share the results of the study with them and their membership at the end of the study. Most organizations requested receiving the results of the study for education of their stakeholders and organization.

Dissemination Event

As we completed the Self-Advocacy Study, our research team began to consider possible strategies to efficiently and fruitfully disseminate our results to multiple groups of lay and scientific stakeholders. Despite our study being a one-time survey study, we grew close to our participants during the course of the study as we heard their stories of advocating for their healthcare and personal needs. Even though we conducted qualitative pilot work exploring patient experiences of self-advocacy, we recognized that this study was exposing patients’ additional concerns. We concluded that patients and our stakeholders required a larger forum in which to discuss patient self-advocacy. We wanted to provide space to discuss the challenges to having patients speak up for their values and preferences and brainstorm ways to build self-advocacy skills in vulnerable patient populations.

Our main dissemination event consisted of a large one-day dissemination meeting and discussion in August 2015. We invited participants from the parent study, individuals from our recruitment sites, and community members who would be interested in promoting patient self-advocacy. At this event, we presented our findings of our research study, encouraged stakeholders to discuss the findings with each other, and together developed strategies for future research studies. We did not intend for this event to be a formal research study, but did want to capitalize on the opportunity to receive feedback from multiple stakeholders and collectively discuss future steps for our research team’s long-term program of research.

Thirty-two individuals attended the dissemination event. Since our invitations were sent to multiple stakeholders and large memberships, we are unsure of how many individuals received the invitation. Table 2 describes the event’s attendees based on feedback from thirteen people who completed the evaluation form. Each attendee was given a folder with a program of the dissemination event, a brief summary of the completed Self-Advocacy Study, a copy of the small group discussion questions that would be asked during the dissemination event, and paper to take notes. Volunteers from the University of Pittsburgh School of Nursing were located in the back of the event room offering health information, blood pressure screenings, health promotion materials, and community health resources. The event was also web-cast for attendees who were not from Pittsburgh or who were unable to attend the event in-person.

Dissemination Event Attendees (n=13)

The event lasted an hour and a half and consisted of lunch, a brief presentation describing the Self-Advocacy Study’s purpose and results, and a testimonial from a woman with ovarian cancer describing her experience of self-advocacy. This testimony was intended to provide a real-life description of the clinical problem and reinforce the need for research to improve self-advocacy among women with cancer.

While describing the study, we shared a brief overview of the final self-advocacy scale and its items. Rather than discuss the validity and reliability statistics supporting the psychometric strength of the instrument, we discussed the meaning of the scale (what each sub-dimension meant and how the scale could be used). We focused on data that was relevant to our audience to provide context and results of the study to our audience. We encouraged questions from the audience and received many thoughtful comments throughout the presentation.

Next, attendees broke out into small groups to discuss the Self-Advocacy Study’s findings and future study directions. They were instructed that their feedback would be used by the research team in their making of patient education and future research studies. Therefore, attendees were encouraged to talk openly and freely, and that all perspectives were equally valuable. We wrote the questions below to elicit feedback on study results and brainstorm future research and patient support:

• From what the study found out about self-advocacy, do you think the researchers are missing any critical parts of how patients advocate for themselves?
• From what the study found out about self-advocacy, what do you think is the best way to help teach women how to advocate for themselves?
• How would you specifically try to do this?

After the small group discussions, the entire group reconvened to share findings and discuss future research priorities. Research team members facilitated the conversation within each small group, took notes to document the discussion, and kept a log of suggestions. The same research team members recorded notes from the large group discussion.

Dissemination Framework

We searched for dissemination frameworks that would provide us with a structured method for disseminating research into the community and collecting feedback from stakeholders. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) created the Dissemination Planning Tool ( Figure 1 ) in an effort to support researchers in effectively disseminating their research. We selected this framework because its first step reflected our research study’s status (e.g., research findings) and the framework’s specific, targeted steps for creating a robust dissemination plan including identifying and defining: (a) research findings and products, (b) end-users, (c) dissemination partners, (d) communication, (e) evaluation, and (f) dissemination work plan. (Carpenter et al., 2013) This framework is intended to serve as a tool for researchers to market the unique aspects of their research to those multiple end-users.

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Dissemination Planning Tool

In this article, we describe our application of the AHRQ framework to the Self-Advocacy Study’s dissemination plan. Using the steps of the framework, we will expound on our planning and implementation of the dissemination event, and then describe the results of this event especially as they pertain to involving patients and community stakeholders in our research program.

We describe our results of our dissemination strategy as they relate to the AHRQ Dissemination Framework.

(A) Research Findings & Products

We designed our dissemination strategy to involve our partners in our dissemination process by presenting them with the results of our Self-Advocacy Study at our dissemination event and asking for their advice during this event. We purposefully chose not to make assumptions about how stakeholders would interpret our research findings. Rather, we specifically wanted their guidance on how the study results should be used to both inform future studies and develop patient education teaching self-advocacy skills to individuals with cancer.

Developing research products for dissemination required a shift in viewpoint among the research team. The scientific findings of our study were related to the psychometric properties of our new self-advocacy scale, and we are currently reporting these results in scientific journals and at scientific conferences. Study participants and recruitment sites were aware of these aims of the study, but we presumed these groups and other non-scientific stakeholders would likely not be interested in our scale’s psychometric results. Therefore, we altered our dissemination focus and rethought our findings from the perspective of these stakeholders to present our most interesting and useful results for discussion at the dissemination event.

(B) End-users

Given our commitment to share our results, we were obliged to share our results with our study participants and recruitment sites. All participants were invited to attend the dissemination event either in-person or virtually. Since the Self-Advocacy Study was a national study, we knew that participants outside of the Pittsburgh area would not be able to attend the event, but would be interested in the study’s findings. We met with leaders of each of our recruitment sites to discuss the study findings, answer questions from the site leaders, and discuss potential partnerships during future research studies. We were also interested in sharing our results with the broader patient population and local and national community stakeholders. The scientific community was also an end-user, and a group to whom we wanted to report the rigor by which we undertook the study and the significance of the study results. Table 1 describes each of our end-users, their levels of participation in the parent study, and their interests in the results of the study.

Dissemination Methods and Results by End-user

(C) Dissemination Partners

Given our diverse end-users, we decided to streamline dissemination process by having at least one event in August 2015 that we could invite study participants, recruitment site leaders, and all interested stakeholders to attend. The University of Pittsburgh Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI) was a major contributor, both as one of our most successful recruitment partner through their Research Participant Registry and as a source of funding for our dissemination process.

(D) Communication

Since we had such broad end-users, we wanted the communication of our dissemination strategy to appeal to multiple groups. We communicated our dissemination event using paper and email brochures and included a description of the event emphasizing that most of the discussing the study results. We also included a brief, two-page bulletin describing the study and highlighting our results. To encourage others who may be interested in the study and topic to attend, we asked all of our partners to share the invitation to their respective networks. Because our research study was national but our event was held locally, we invited interested parties to attend the dissemination event using video-conference and/or to privately share their thoughts about the study and ideas about potential next steps with the research team.

(E) Evaluation

Immediately after the dissemination event, we asked attendees to complete an evaluation and offer additional suggestions to our research team. These forms were primarily a programmatic evaluation of the event and additional opportunity for feedback; we did not originally intend to design these forms as qualitative questionnaires for research purposes. We also received feedback from other patients and stakeholders who were not able to attend the event, but who had received our bulletins and presentation slides.

(F) Dissemination Work Plan

Based on the evaluation feedback we received at the dissemination event, our research team developed a work plan after highlighting ways in which we could integrate the results of the research study with the results from the dissemination event to inform our next steps in this program of research regarding patient self-advocacy. The plan consisted of (1) creating patient education materials to train patients to self-advocate and (2) designing a patient-centered intervention to train patients to self-advocate.

Table 1 describes the products and modes of dissemination for each end-user along with the research team’s special considerations for each. This table demonstrates how the same products can be shared across end-users.

Results of the dissemination evaluation were overall positive, with the lowest scores reflecting attendees’ perceptions of meaningfully contributing to the study ( Table 3 ). Attendees generally enjoyed the event, felt they learned about the study and could ask questions, and wanted to stay involved in the research going forward. While attendees who had not participated in the Self-Advocacy Study did not feel as strongly that they contributed to the study in a meaningful way, study participants did feel like they contributed meaningfully.

Evaluations from Dissemination Event

We transcribed the notes taken during the small and large group discussions and then organized the notes into a single document which the research team can now reference. Table 4 includes direct quotations of attendee suggestions on how the research team should disseminate study findings. Such rich, descriptive insights recorded in the small and large group discussions could not have been abstracted from the results of the Self-Advocacy Study. Moreover, attendees noted learning from each other’s experiences and perspectives. Some attendees networked with each other to share resources and information related to their cancer and treatment.

Advice from Participants on How to Support Self-Advocacy Among Women with Cancer

Development of Patient Education Materials & Planning for Future Research Studies

The feedback we received during the dissemination event provided keen, direct guidance suggesting we develop patient education materials to help patients self-advocate. For example, attendees were adamant about the role of social support in being foundational to women being able to advocate for themselves. Therefore, our patient education (and research interventions) must address how a woman can affectively use her available support systems. One attendee who was a study participant gave an exemplary metaphor when she described the interplay between self-advocacy and social support: “It’s like Uber – you are in charge of where you are going, but you don’t always have to drive.” This metaphor is invaluable for our research team as we move our research into designing interventions. Based on what these stakeholders suggested for our self-advocacy patient education, we developed a website ( www.empowercancerpatients.com ) that will engage individuals with cancer in sharing their stories of self-advocacy, hints for others who are struggling to self-advocate, and our results from previous studies regarding patient self-advocacy. We will continue to use this website to provide a space for individuals affected by cancer looking for connection and strength together.

Feedback from the dissemination event provided us with critical perspectives for our future research. Specific recommendations included the ideal timing and location of future interventions and specific types of information that would be appealing to women who struggle to self-advocate. One attendee urged us to design research with clear, explicit instructions: “What you [the researchers] need is a primer for self-advocacy with real world examples.” Attendees also recommended having self-advocacy interventions include their healthcare providers and community resources outside of the hospital system. One woman described the difficulties of self-advocating with a rare cancer, and ended up informing other attendees about her type of cancer and the lack of available resources. Based on this feedback, we are currently designing and pilot testing a self-advocacy training intervention that uses common situations patients in our previous discussions have described to demonstrate how and when they can advocate for their needs and priorities.

Our study team learned several key lessons relevant to anyone attempting to organize a patient- and community-centered research dissemination event.

Practical Concerns

Key challenges and lessons learned during our dissemination included:

• Attendee considerations . In order to have as many attendees as possible, we tried to preemptively accommodate the needs of our audience to allow them to attend the dissemination event. We ensured the event’s location was centrally located next to the major woman’s hospital but not in the hospital to accommodate community stakeholders, researchers, and participants alike. The room was fully accessible and disability-friendly, restrooms were close by, and that the time of day was around the lunch hour. Still, several people noted that physical limitations or health illnesses prevented them from attending. We had eleven study participants cancel in the days immediately before the event due to health concerns.
• Remote attendance technology concerns . We originally had over 20 study participants indicate they would virtually attend the dissemination event. We sent them log-in information, reminder emails, copies of the presentation slides and an email address to contact in case of technological difficulties. Despite the strong interest, no one virtually attended the meeting.
• Ethical concerns . While conducting the Self-Advocacy Study, our study team was vigilant about protecting participants’ privacy and confidentiality. While organizing our dissemination event, we considered the ethics of having patients attend the event and having a speaker discuss her personal experiences in front of the group. We specifically gave patients the option to remain anonymous while at the event, since not all attendees were patients with cancer, and encouraged people to only share to their level of comfort. We invited a member of the National Ovarian Cancer Coalition speakers’ bureau who speaks publically about her cancer experience in the Pittsburgh community provide the testimonial during the event and worked with her prior to the event to ensure her comfort in sharing her story with the diverse group of attendees.

Facilitators of our dissemination plan included:

• Key academic partners . Having the CTSI support to assist in dissemination free of charge was instrumental in conducting the dissemination. The CTSI’s funding was also necessary to afford the costs associated with the dissemination event.
• Key community stakeholders . Community stakeholders such as National Ovarian Cancer Coalition facilitated the event by organizing the catering and booking the event space. Familiar with the needs of this patient population, they proactively ensured the dissemination event space was handicap-accessible and close to the parking garage to reduce attendee burden.
• Research study team. Member of the Self-Advocacy Study research team were critical to setting up the dissemination event, greeting attendees, leading and recording the small group discussions, managing the webcast of the event, and ensuring the overall success of the event. These volunteers made the event run in an efficient, productive, and personable manner.
• Food . Providing lunch from a quality restaurant at the dissemination event encouraged attendance and demonstrated our research team’s appreciation of the attendees’ time, energy, and valuable feedback.
• Parking . Because of the relationship National Ovarian Cancer Coalition had with the event location and our funding, we were able to provide free parking to the event.

This simple, one-time dissemination strategy represents an alternative to only disseminating research for the scientific community. For non-researchers, involvement in dissemination strategy like the one described in this article provide a feedback mechanism by which to understand and critique research intended to benefit end-users like themselves. For researchers, having patients and stakeholders interested and involved in your research offers several tangible benefits in addition to ensuring that our end-users have received the results of our research.

Research participants want and expect trustworthy, timely information about the studies to which they consent to participate. ( Ondenge et al., 2015 ) As a cross-sectional survey study, the Self-Advocacy Study offered a limited, inflexible platform for sharing ideas and concerns. Therefore, our participants and stakeholders appreciated the outlet that the dissemination event provided to raise concerns or offer suggestions about how to improve the lives of women with cancer. We received positive feedback from attendees indicating their appreciation for being included in the research endeavor and enjoyment of the event. We recommend other research groups use the AHRQ Dissemination Planning Tool to methodically consider their dissemination process and how this process can be used to spur inventive, patient- and community-stakeholder centered projects. If robustly designed, such dissemination events can succeed at both improving patient engagement and making research more relevant to all stakeholders. ( Domecq et al., 2014 )

Innovative partnerships between academia and community stakeholders have demonstrated the creative potential of having multiple perspectives and talents brought together. ( Roy et al, 2014 ) Viewing research as a sustained program rather than punctuated episodes, such partners can provide tangible resources (e.g. space, staff, volunteers, and connections) and dedicated attentiveness (e.g. future collaborations) unmatched within the constraints of academia. Our partners during the Self-Advocacy Study assisted in organizing this dissemination event and actively discussed future research priorities. We will continue to nurture these partnerships for the purpose of collectively working to benefit this patient population.

Above all, dissemination processes can build trust between researchers, patients, and community stakeholders. In an era with growing public scrutiny of the research process, ( Gauchat, 2012 ) such partnerships are critical. By ensuring all parties understand the others’ priorities and activities, a more unified effort can be orchestrated to address critical health care problems. ( Gradinger et al., 2013 ) This may lead to sustainable academic-community partnerships that can facilitate a healthy, ongoing collaboration of developing shared research questions, scientific investigations, and result dissemination. ( Carney et al., 2011 ) Even though our dissemination event was limited in time and space, it convened a group of stakeholders together to succinctly and efficiently provide study results and request stakeholder input.

Limitations to this study include the low participant turn-out rate among research participants and the low response rate for evaluation forms among attendees of the dissemination event. While we spent considerable time working with study participants and recruitment sites advertising the event and addressing possible obstacles to attendance (e.g., having the event webcast, offering lunch, validating parking, etc.), we were limited by the availability of study participants (recruited from around the country) to hold the event at a time and location that may not have been convenient for all individuals especially those who had ongoing health issues. Finding creative ways to involve individuals with health limitations and limited travel abilities will ensure all stakeholders are able to contribute during these dissemination events. Moreover, our research assistants attempted to collect evaluation forms from each attendee, but many attendees left the event prior to the research assistant being able to remind attendees to complete the form. In future studies, we would suggest holding multiple events at times and locations that are not cumbersome to the patient population being served. We would also conduct a formal pre-post study to evaluate specific aspects of the dissemination event that impacted stakeholders.

Publication of research findings within scientific journals is adequate but not innovative. Finding novel ways to share findings can serve the interests of researchers, academics and participants. While we do not believe that our dissemination of the Self-Advocacy Study was overly elaborate, the method by which we approached and conducted our dissemination can be used by other researchers and community stakeholders interested in making mutually beneficial research partnerships.

• Dissemination of study results can mutually benefit the patient- and community-stakeholders as well as investigators of research studies.
• Applying frameworks of research dissemination can assist researchers in developing a strategic, community-based approach to sharing study results and generating imaginative, patient-focused approaches to advancing scientific discovery.
• Building collaborations with community stakeholders through honest, open dissemination of study results and discussions of future research steps establishes trust between the lay and scientific communities.
• Creative means of sharing and building research programs can stimulate novel forms of patient education, approaches to intervention research, and forms of stakeholder involvement in research.

Acknowledgments

NIH/NINR F31NR014066 (Hagan)

University of Pittsburgh Clinical and Translational Science Institute UL1TR000005 (Hagan)

Conflict of Interest :

Dr. Hagan, Dr. Schmidt, Ms. Ackison, Ms. Murphy, and Ms. Jones declare that they have no conflict of interest.

• Authors A (blinded for peer review)
• Authors B (blinded for peer review)
• Authors C (blinded for peer review)
• Adler NE, Glymour MM, Fielding J. Addressing social determinants of health and health inequalities. JAMA. 2016; 316 (16):1641–1642. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson NLR, Lesser J, ángel Oscós-Sánchez M, Piñeda, et al. Approaches to community nursing research partnerships: a case example. Journal of Transcultural Nursing. 2014; 25 (2):129–136. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carney JK, Maltby HJ, Mackin KA, Maksym ME. Community–academic partnerships: how can communities benefit? American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2011; 41 (4):S206–213. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carpenter D, Nieva V, Albaghal T, et al. Advances in Patient Safety: From Research to Implementation, Programs, Tools and Practices. Vol. 4. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2005. Development of a planning tool to guide dissemination of research results. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chambers DA, Azrin ST. Research and services partnerships: partnership: a fundamental component of dissemination and implementation research. Psychiatric Services. 2013; 64 (4):509–511. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen PG, Diaz N, Lucas G, et al. Dissemination of results in community-based participatory research. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2010; 39 (4):372–378. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Collins ED, Moore CP, Clay KF, et al. Can women with early-stage breast cancer make an informed decision for mastectomy? Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2009; 27 (4):519–525. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, et al. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Services Research. 2014; 14 (1):1151–1166. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frank L, Forsythe L, Ellis L, et al. Conceptual and practical foundations of patient engagement in research at the patient-centered outcomes research institute. Quality of Life Research. 2015; 24 (5):1033–1041. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gauchat G. Politicization of science in the public sphere a study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review. 2012; 77 (2):167–187. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gradinger F, Britten N, Wyatt K, et al. Values associated with public involvement in health and social care research: a narrative review. Health Expectations. 2013; 18 (5):661–675. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lyratzopoulos G, Abel GA, Brown CH, et al. Socio-demographic inequalities in stage of cancer diagnosis: evidence from patients with female breast, lung, colon, rectal, prostate, renal, bladder, melanoma, ovarian and endometrial cancer. Annals of Oncology. 2013; 24 (3):843–850. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mann H. ASSERT: a standard for the scientific and ethical review of trials. 2005 [Internet] Available at: www.assert-statement.org/
• Ondenge K, McLellan-Lemal E, Awuonda E, et al. Disseminating results: community response and input on Kisumu breastfeeding study. Translational Behavioral Medicine. 2015; 5 (2):207–215. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reyna VF, Nelson WL, Han PK, Pignone MP. Decision making and cancer. American Psychologist. 2015; 70 (2):105–118. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roy UB, Michel T, Carpenter A, et al. Peer reviewed: community-led cancer action councils in Queens, New York: process evaluation of an innovative partnership with the Queens Library System. Preventing Chronic Disease. 2014; 11 :130176. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Timmins F. Disseminating nursing research. Nursing Standard. 2015; 29 (48):34–39. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]