research findings communicating

Communicating and disseminating research findings to study participants: Formative assessment of participant and researcher expectations and preferences

Affiliations.

• 1 College of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
• 2 College of Health Professions/Healthcare Leadership & Management, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
• 3 South Carolina Clinical & Translational Research Institute (CTSA), Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
• 4 SOGI-SES Add Health Study Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
• 5 College of Nursing, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
• PMID: 32695495
• PMCID: PMC7348011
• DOI: 10.1017/cts.2020.9

Introduction: Translating research findings into practice requires understanding how to meet communication and dissemination needs and preferences of intended audiences including past research participants (PSPs) who want, but seldom receive, information on research findings during or after participating in research studies. Most researchers want to let others, including PSP, know about their findings but lack knowledge about how to effectively communicate findings to a lay audience.

Methods: We designed a two-phase, mixed methods pilot study to understand experiences, expectations, concerns, preferences, and capacities of researchers and PSP in two age groups (adolescents/young adults (AYA) or older adults) and to test communication prototypes for sharing, receiving, and using information on research study findings.

Principal results: PSP and researchers agreed that sharing study findings should happen and that doing so could improve participant recruitment and enrollment, use of research findings to improve health and health-care delivery, and build community support for research. Some differences and similarities in communication preferences and message format were identified between PSP groups, reinforcing the best practice of customizing communication channel and messaging. Researchers wanted specific training and/or time and resources to help them prepare messages in formats to meet PSP needs and preferences but were unaware of resources to help them do so.

Conclusions: Our findings offer insight into how to engage both PSP and researchers in the design and use of strategies to share research findings and highlight the need to develop services and support for researchers as they aim to bridge this translational barrier.

Keywords: Communication; dissemination; research findings; research participant preference; researcher preference.

© The Association for Clinical and Translational Science 2020.

Grants and funding

• UL1 TR001450/TR/NCATS NIH HHS/United States

• Technical Help
• CE/CME Help
• Billing Help
• Sales Inquiries
• Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR)

Communicating Research Findings

This course focuses on effective practices, guidelines, and strategies for communicating and presenting research findings.

About this Course

Researchers have a range of ethical obligations when designing and conducting their research activities.  These obligations also pertain to how researchers share their findings with others. This course covers two main topic areas in the realm of sharing research findings. The first module focuses on practices and guidelines for presenting research findings to other researchers. The second module focuses on strategies for more effectively communicating research to the public.

Language Availability: English, Spanish

Suggested Audiences: Individuals conducting research including students and faculty members

Organizational Subscription Price: Included in Responsible Conduct of Research series, available as part of an organizational subscription package or for $675 per year/per site as a subscription add-on for government and non-profit organizations; $750 per year/per site as a subscription add-on for for-profit organizations Independent Learner Price: $29 per person

Course Content

Communicating with the public.

Provides an in-depth discussion on communicating research results to the public, including approaches for making results more understandable to difference audiences.

Recommended Use: Required ID (Language): 19270 (English), 20800 (Spanish), 21351 (French) Author(s): Elizabeth Bass, MPH - Stony Brook University

Presentation of Research Findings

Discusses how to present research findings accurately for publication, including strategies for preparing figures, graphs, and digital images.

Recommended Use: Required ID (Language): 19355 (English), 20801 (Spanish), 21352 (French) Author(s): Christina N. Bennett, PhD - The American Psychological Society; Douglas Cromey, MS - University of Arizona

Related Content

This course covers the core norms, principles, regulations, and rules governing the practice of research.

This course offers retraining on the RCR Basic course.

This course provides learners with an understanding of how to improve study design, collect and analyze data, and promote reproducible research.

This course offers a foundational overview of the critical areas associated with IRB and IRB office operations.

Privacy Overview

• Help & FAQ

Communicating research findings

Research output : Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Chapter (Book) › Research › peer-review

Other files and links

• Link to edited book

Research output

• 2 Chapter (Book)
• 1 Edited Book

Research output per year

Personal experience methods in practitioner research

The bera/sage handbook of educational research.

Research output : Book/Report › Edited Book › peer-review

The role of theory in research

T1 - Communicating research findings

AU - Rickinson, Mark

N2 - This chapter focuses on communicating research findings, the part of the research process where research outcomes and outputs are made public. It considers why research communication matters, and why there are increasing calls for improved research communication within and beyond education. It proposes that responses to such calls need to start with how research communication is conceptualised, before considering what techniques and tools can make it more effective. It argues that certain understandings of research communication are more conducive to productive communication strategies than others. In particular, ones that see the research communication process as: integral rather than separate from research; involving indirect rather than direct connection; about engagement and learning rather than dissemination and transfer; and concerned with varied ways of using research. Drawing on these kinds of conceptualisations, the chapter then examines what effective research communication involves and looks like in practice. It shows how researchers and research organisation need to work on: knowing their audience; highlighting their key messages; tailoring their outputs; and supporting uptake and use.

AB - This chapter focuses on communicating research findings, the part of the research process where research outcomes and outputs are made public. It considers why research communication matters, and why there are increasing calls for improved research communication within and beyond education. It proposes that responses to such calls need to start with how research communication is conceptualised, before considering what techniques and tools can make it more effective. It argues that certain understandings of research communication are more conducive to productive communication strategies than others. In particular, ones that see the research communication process as: integral rather than separate from research; involving indirect rather than direct connection; about engagement and learning rather than dissemination and transfer; and concerned with varied ways of using research. Drawing on these kinds of conceptualisations, the chapter then examines what effective research communication involves and looks like in practice. It shows how researchers and research organisation need to work on: knowing their audience; highlighting their key messages; tailoring their outputs; and supporting uptake and use.

UR - https://au.sagepub.com/en-gb/oce/the-berasage-handbook-of-educational-research/book245556

M3 - Chapter (Book)

SN - 9781473918917

BT - The BERA/SAGE Handbook of Educational Research

A2 - Wyse, Dominic

A2 - Selwyn, Neil

A2 - Smith, Emma

A2 - Suter, Larry

PB - SAGE Publications Ltd

CY - London

• Getting Published
• Open Research
• Communicating Research
• Life in Research
• For Editors
• For Peer Reviewers
• Research Integrity

How to communicate your research more effectively

Author: guest contributor.

by Angie Voyles Askham, Content Marketing Intern

"Scientists need to excite the public about their work in part because the public is paying for it, and in part because science has very important things to say about some of the biggest problems society faces."

Stephen S. Hall has been reporting and writing about science for decades. For the past ten years, he's also been helping researchers at New York University improve their writing skills through the school's unique  Science Communication Workshops . In our interview below, he explains why the public deserves good science communication and offers some tips for how researchers can make their writing clear and engaging.

How would you descr ibe your role as a science journalist?

I’ve always made a distinction between "science writer" and a writer who happens to be interested in science. That may sound like wordplay, but I think it captures what we aspire to do. Even as specialists, science journalists wear several hats: we explain, we report, we investigate, we step back and provide historical context to scientific developments to help people understand what’s new, why something is controversial, who drove a major innovation. And like any writer, we look for interesting, provocative, and deeply reported ways to tell these stories.

I know you from the science communication workshop that’s offered to NYU graduate students. One of the most important things that I got out of the workshop, at least initially, was training myself out of the stuffy academic voice that I think a lot researchers fall into when writing academic papers. Why do you think scientists fall into this particular trap, and how do you help them get out of it?

Scientists are trained—and rightly so—to describe their work in neutral, objective terms, qualifying all observations and openly acknowledging experimental limitations. Those qualities play very well in scientific papers and talks, but are terrible for effective communication to the general public. In our Science Communication workshops at NYU, we typically see that scientists tend to communicate in dense, formal and cautious language; they tell their audiences too much; they mimic the scientific literature’s affinity for passive voice; and they slip into jargon and what I call “jargonish,” defensive language. Over ten years of conducting workshops, we’ve learned to attack these problems on two fronts: pattern recognition (training people to recognize bad writing/speaking habits and fixing them) and psychological "deprogramming" (it’s okay to leave some details and qualifications out!). And a key ingredient to successful communication is understanding your audience; there is no such thing as the "general public," but rather a bunch of different potential audiences, with different needs and different levels of expertise. We try to educate scientists to recognize the exact audience they're trying to reach—what they need to know and, just as important, what they don't need to know.

What are some other common mistakes that you see researchers making when they’re trying to communicate about their work, either with each other or with the public?

We see the same tendencies over and over again: vocabulary (not simply jargon, but common expressions—such as gene “expression”—that are second-hand within a field, but not clear to non-experts); abstract, complicated explanations rather than using everyday language; sentences that are too long; and “optics” (paragraphs that are too long and appear monolithic to readers). We’ve found that workshops are the perfect setting to play out the process of using everyday language to explain something without sacrificing scientific accuracy.

Why is it important for researchers to be better communicators?

Scientists need to learn to tell their own stories, first and foremost, because society needs their expertise, their perspective, their evidence-based problem solving skills for the future. But the lay public, especially in an era where every fact seems up for grabs, needs to be reminded of what the scientific method is: using critical thinking and rigorous analysis of facts to reach evidence-based conclusions. Scientists need to excite the public about their work in part because the public is paying for it, and in part because science has very important things to say about some of the biggest problems society faces—climate change, medical care, advanced technologies like artificial intelligence, among many other issues. As climate scientist Michael Mann said in a celebrated 2014 New York Times OpEd, scientists can no longer stay on the sidelines in these important public debates.

As a science journalist, part of your job is to hunt for interesting stories to tell. How can scientists make their work more accessible to people like you—or to other people outside of their specific area of research—so that their stories are told more widely?

The key word in your question is “stories.” Think like a writer. What’s the story behind your discovery? What were the ups and downs on the way to the finding? Where does this fit into a larger history of science narrative? Was there a funny incident or episode in the work (humor is a great way to draw and sustain public interest)? Was there a conflict or competition that makes the work even more interesting? Is there a compelling historical or contemporary figure involved that will help you humanize the science? It's been our-longstanding belief that scientists have a great intuitive feel for good storytelling (we incorporate narrative training in our workshops), but just don’t think about it when it comes to describing their own work. The other key thing is to explain why your research matters.

One of the ways that many researchers try to share their work is through Twitter, but I noticed that on the NYU website it says you’re a Twitter conscientious objector. Why is that? What effect do you think Twitter has had on science communication and journalism in general?

I actually think Twitter can be a great tool for science communication, and many of my colleagues use it deftly. I tend to gravitate toward stories that everyone is not talking about, so Twitter doesn’t help much in that regard. The larger reason I’m a Twitter “refusenik,” as my colleague Dan Fagin sometimes calls me, is that I think the technology has been widely abused to disseminate misinformation, intimidate enemies, and subvert democratic norms; I don’t use it primarily for those reasons.

Are there any other tips that you can offer researchers who want to be better communicators and just aren’t sure where to start?

One first step might be to see if your institution offers any communication training and to take advantage of those programs; if not, think about how you might establish a program. We’ve posted a few of the things we’ve learned at NYU on our website ; we’ve also established a publishing platform for science communicators at NYU called the Cooper Square Review , which is a good way for scientists to get experience publishing their own work and reaching a larger public.

Stephen S. Hall  has been reporting and writing about science for nearly 30 years. In addition to numerous cover stories in the New York Times Magazine, where he also served as a Story Editor and Contributing Writer, his work has appeared in The New Yorker, The Atlantic Monthly, and a number of other outlets. He is also the author of six non-fiction books about contemporary science. In addition to teaching the Science Communication Workshops at NYU, he also teaches for NYU's Science, Health and Environmental Reporting Program (SHERP) and has taught graduate seminars in science writing and explanatory journalism at Columbia University.

Click here to learn how Springer Nature continues to support the needs of Early Career Researchers.

Guest Contributors include Springer Nature staff and authors, industry experts, society partners, and many others. If you are interested in being a Guest Contributor, please contact us via email: [email protected] .

• early career researchers
• research communication
• Tools & Services
• Account Development
• Sales and account contacts
• Professional
• Press office
• Locations & Contact

We are a world leading research, educational and professional publisher. Visit our main website for more information.

• © 2024 Springer Nature
• General terms and conditions
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Your Privacy Choices / Manage Cookies
• Accessibility
• Legal notice
• Help us to improve this site, send feedback.

• News & Highlights

• Publications and Documents
• Postgraduate Education
• Browse Our Courses
• C/T Research Academy
• K12 Investigator Training
• Translational Innovator
• SMART IRB Reliance Request
• Biostatistics Consulting
• Regulatory Support
• Pilot Funding
• Informatics Program
• Community Engagement
• Diversity Inclusion
• Research Enrollment and Diversity
• Harvard Catalyst Profiles

Effectively Communicating Research

Intensive course designed to provide researchers with the skills necessary to express their science clearly to diverse audiences

For more information:

Course goals.

• Understand how and why to effectively communicate your research through a variety of platforms.
• Understand the structure of content that is appropriate and how to achieve the highest quality for each mode of scientific communication.
• Learn how to make written and graphic content more accessible and engaging.
• Know how to deliver oral presentations effectively with diverse audiences and settings.
• Learn approaches to request and respond to feedback from mentors, colleagues, and external reviewers.

How do you effectively draft your scientific message so that it has the optimal chance to be accepted for publication? How do you communicate your science in an oral presentation? How much text is appropriate for a poster? What are some guidelines and tips for dealing with the media? Communication is an essential part of your research and a crucial component for a successful career as a researcher.

Effectively Communicating Research  is a two-day, intensive course offered by Harvard Catalyst. The course is designed to provide fellows and junior faculty with the skills necessary to express their science clearly to diverse audiences; to prepare abstracts, manuscripts, and posters, and to speak effectively.

With the guidance and expertise of the course faculty, including journal editors and leading scientists, participants will acquire the tools necessary to convey their science effectively.

Session dates

November 14 & 16, 2022

Time commitment

Participants accepted into the course must commit to fully participate in two days of the course.

As long as public health conditions permit, we will be running this event in-person , on the Harvard Medical School campus.  Participants will be required to follow all Covid-19 guidelines outlined by Harvard Medical School.

Fellows and junior faculty who are in the process of writing for publication or creating communication materials for scientific oral or poster presentations.

We believe that the research community is strengthened by understanding how a number of factors including gender identity, sexual orientation, race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status, culture, religion, national origin, language, disability, and age shape the environment in which we live and work, affect each of our personal identities, and impacts all areas of human health.

Eligibility

• MD and/or PhD (or equivalent) involved in medical research
• Fellows and Junior Faculty

Free for Harvard-affiliated  schools and  institutions.

Accreditation statement

The Harvard Catalyst Education Program is accredited by the Massachusetts Medical Society to provide continuing medical education for physicians.

Harvard Catalyst Education Program’s policy requires full attendance and the completion of all activity surveys to be eligible for CME credit; no partial credit is allowed.

Harvard Catalyst Postgraduate Education is dedicated to addressing equity and intersectionality in medicine. Race, ethnicity, age, and sex can impact how different people respond to the same intervention. Diversity of thought and perspectives through the lens of a participant’s background contributes to an enhanced course experience, improved research and development, and overall better medical devices. The benefits of bringing more seats to the table extends far beyond this course. With this in mind, ECR is intentionally reserving space for applicants from historically excluded communities to attend the course.

The application process is closed. Please check back for future opportunities.

GatherContent is becoming Content Workflow by Bynder. Read More

Communicating research and its impact through content

Alexander Buxton

Head of strategic communications at the university of oxford, 7 minute read.

Interviewed by:

Table of contents

Collaborate

How to bring people together around digital projects.

Ellen de Vries

Brand and Content Strategist

Science and technology are embedded in virtually every aspect of modern life. Communications professionals and organisations producing research increasingly face the need to find creative ways to integrate their scientific achievements with their content strategy.

Effective science communication is particularly complex. It is highly dependent on what is being communicated, its relevance to those participating in the conversation, in addition to the social and media dynamic around the issues being addressed. This makes getting it right and deriving lessons that can be applied across issues and contexts particularly challenging.

This article aims to provide insights into the following questions:

What is research communication and why is it important?

What makes good research communications content.

• What is the future of research communications and where are we heading?

Five tips for communicating research and impact

Impact, outreach and research communications have become buzzwords in the higher education landscape where universities and researchers must deliver impact, engage with enterprise, and communicate their research to broader audiences.

In fact, plans for effective research communication are now required in many research funding applications. Additionally the Research Excellence Framework (REF), is looming in 2021, this is the system for assessing the quality of research in UK higher education institutions. Universities who aren’t communicating their research effectively could miss out on government research funding and the top spots in university rankings.

There is increasing pressure for universities to tell the innovation stories of their technology transfer, start-ups, spin-outs and the commercialisation of their research while simultaneously highlighting the opportunities for training and mentoring the next generation of entrepreneurs who will drive those new technologies forward.

If organisations hit the sweet spot when it comes to communicating their research achievements and activity, it can have a number of tangible business benefits. It can also positively grow their reputation and even influence policy decisions for the betterment of economies, societies and humanity. 

Research communications is a skilled activity addressing a range of audience groups. The skills and abilities to interpret complex findings and distill them into usable information for non-experts without over simplification and ‘dumbing down’, are essential for your content to engage these audiences.

To achieve results that further goals and objectives there are many factors to consider, most important is ensuring your content is relevant to your audience . Your audience will want to know how the research is useful to them or how it could change the lives of their constituents, readers and viewers.

When crafting the message, it is useful to keep in mind your objective – what you want to get across to the audience, the relevance – what does the audience want to know about this story and clarity – what could this audience get wrong unless you stress the right information.

Timing is also key. There can be a temptation to communicate when findings are ready to share and when it is convenient to do so, but information that is relevant to these audiences is best communicated when they are ready and willing to listen.

There are a raft of content formats available to deliver research communications ranging from:

• Press releases
• Case studies
• Podcasts and videos
• Events, briefings and exhibitions

The audiences for research communications vary depending on the type of research but tailoring the message, content, channel and timing can be crucial to reaching them. Potential audience groups identified in the Department for International Development (DFID)’s working paper Research Communication Insights from Practice include;

Researchers who are involved in similar areas of study and research, who may well use and develop research findings further and then pass them on.

Research organisations and educational institutions which can encourage their staff and students to engage, analyse and discuss issues around the relevance and impact of research findings.

Intermediaries such as Non Governmental Organisations (NGO’s) play a key role in reaching policy makers when research findings are processed into policy briefings and similar outputs.

Funding agencies, research councils, charities and major donors have the power to provide crucial financial support to universities and research projects.

Industry decision makers and industrial scientists are key users of research who can facilitate collaborative projects on real world problems and often funding. ‍ Influencers include the traditional media and digital publishers who can reach out to a much wider audience.

The future of research communications

Looking at some of the wider trends in communications identified in the Reuters News Institute for the study of journalism’s report: Journalism, Media, and Technology Trends and Predictions 2020 it is clear that technology advances will present opportunities for content creators and research communicators.

The report identifies that better, more immersive, feature-rich headphones (e.g. AirPod Pro and similar devices) will prove to be a big tech hit this year, giving a boost to audio formats like podcasts. Transcription and automated translation will be some of the first AI-driven technologies to reach mass adoption, opening up new frontiers and opportunities.

It also suggests that thanks to 5G rollout, faster and more reliable smartphone connectivity, will make it ever easier to access multimedia content on the go. Advances in technology will soon enable AI driven news pages to be tailored to visitor interests, presenting yet more opportunities to reach intended audiences. 

Looking more closely at crafting research communications the Pew Research Center performed a study on ‘ the science people see on social media ’ across 30 science related social media pages with between 3 million and 44 million followers. Here’s what they found: New scientific discoveries are covered in 29% of the posts on these pages. Fully 21% of posts featured the practical applications of science information, framed as “news you can use.” Another 16% of posts were promotions or advertisements for media or events and 12% of posts were aimed at explaining a science-related concept.

Throughout the study, video was a common feature of the most highly engaging posts whether they were aimed at explaining a scientific concept, highlighting new discoveries, or showcasing ways people can put science information to use in their lives. 

Here are some examples of some great research communications video content that;

1.   Feature interesting people

2.   Do the unexpected

3.   Simplify the science

4.   Use wonder

5.   Make researchers the hero

6.   Make it relatable

7.   Make it shareable

The timing, content type and quality of the science may not be the only factors that influence decision making. There is a need to make existing information more accessible and to analyse and synthesise research to provide tailored content.

There is also a need for more harmonised and effective communication of research across institutions using agreed language, tools and standards.

Ultimately knowledge is power. It is important to remember the ability to communicate research findings should be regarded as a public good on par with creating new knowledge. Because, if pioneering research is able to solve a grand challenge facing people and planet, but nobody knows about it, how can it help? 

• Know your audience, focus and organise your information for them
• Focus on the big picture such as the major ideas or issues the work addresses 
• Avoid jargon, try to avoid technical terms and keep the language simple
• Try to use metaphors or analogies to everyday experiences that people can relate to
• Underscore how the research can be applied or how it can inform effective policy making

The research landscape can be complex but if done correctly, conveying the benefits to society of research, teaching and innovation can be particularly rewarding for organisations, researchers and communications professionals. 

Webinar Recording

Clarity in higher education: every written word represents your brand, watch this webinar to learn how to create information about your university that is clear, concise, and credible. including: how to create policies, disclosures, and other non-marketing content that is easy for students, faculty, or the public to understand., june 4, 2020.

About the author

Alexander Buxton is a communications strategist and consultant with over ten years experience in communications roles within the public and the private sector. Through speaking, writing, and training programs he offers insights into contemporary issues in content strategy, content creation, and communication technology.

Alex is Head of Strategic Communications at the University of Oxford. Prior to joining the Public Affairs Directorate at Oxford, Alex spent two years as a senior advisor for global branding and communications working with universities in the Middle East, three years leading on research communications for the University of Warwick and five years implementing communications strategy with UK emergency services and the private sector. He has related qualifications from Oxford Brookes University, the Chartered Institute of Marketing and the Yale School of Management.

Connect with Alex on LinkedIn , Twitter @ADBComms or at alexander-buxton.com

Related posts you might like

Higher Education's content conflict

June 21, 2018, 2 minute read.

Ashley Budd

Director of Digital Marketing for Cornell University’s Alumni Affairs and Development

What will content look like for higher ed in 2020?

February 10, 2020, 9 minute read.

Paige Toomes

Copywriter and Digital Marketer

Implementing “Storytelling Ops” in Higher Education

January 31, 2019, 10 minute read.

Georgy Cohen

Director of Digital Strategy at OHO Interactive

Platform FEATURES

• Content Hub
• Content Project Management
• Content Planning
• Content Templates
• Content Style Guides
• Content Management
• Content Workflow
• Content Calendar
• Content Creation & Collaboration
• Beta Features
• What's New
• Productivity
• Integrations
• What is ContentOps?
• Resources and Events
• Our Partners
• Customer Advisory Board
• Join our team
• Security & Backups
• Terms of Service Data Processing Agreement
• Terms of Website Use
• Global Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Help Centre
• API Documentation

Sign up to our weekly newsletter

Communicating Research Findings

• First Online: 03 January 2022

Cite this chapter

• Rob Davidson 5 &
• Chandra Makanjee 6  

385 Accesses

Research is a scholarship activity and a collective endeavor, and as such, its finding should be disseminated. Research findings, often called research outputs, can be disseminated in many forms including peer-reviewed journal articles (e.g., original research, case reports, and review articles) and conference presentations (oral and poster presentations). There are many other options, such as book chapters, educational materials, reports of teaching practices, curriculum description, videos, media (newspapers/radio/television), and websites. Irrespective of the approach that is chosen as the mode of communicating, all modes of communication entail some basic organizational aspects of dissemination processes that are common. These are to define research project objectives, map potential target audience(s), relay target messages, define mode of communication/engagement, and create a dissemination plan.

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

Access this chapter

• 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

Institutional subscriptions

Bavdekar, S. B., Vyas, S., & Anand, V. (2017). Creating posters for effective scientific communication. The Journal of the Association of Physicians of India, 65 (8), 82–88.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2011). Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36 (1), 12–32. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0486

Article   Google Scholar  

Gopal, A., Redman, M., Cox, D., Foreman, D., Elsey, E., & Fleming, S. (2017). Academic poster design at a national conference: A need for standardised guidance? The Clinical Teacher, 14 (5), 360–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.12584

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hoffman, T., Bennett, S., & Del Mar, C. (2017). Evidence-based practice across the health professions, ISBN: 9780729586078 . Elsevier.

Google Scholar  

Iny, D. (2012). Four proven strategies for finding a wider audience for your content . Rainmaker Digital. http://www.copyblogger.com/targeted-content-marketing . Accessed January 2021.

Mir, R., Willmott, H., & Greenwood, M. The routledge companion to philosophy in organization studies (pp. 113–124). Routledge.

Myers, M. D. (2013). Qualitative research in business & management (2nd ed.). Sage.

Myers, M. D. (2018). Writing for different audiences. In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Business and Management Research Methods (pp. 532–545). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526430212.n31

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Nikolian, V. C., & Ibrahim, A. M. (2017). What does the future hold for scientific journals? Visual abstracts and other tools for communicating research. Clinics in Colon and Rectal Surgery, 30 (4), 252–258. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1604253

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ranse, J., & Hayes, C. (2009). A novice’s guide to preparing and presenting an oral presentation at a scientific conference. Australasian Journal of Paramedicine, 7 (1). https://doi.org/10.33151/ajp.7.1.151

Rowe, N., & Ilic, D. (2015). Rethinking poster presentations at large-scale scientific meetings—Is it time for the format to evolve? FEBS Journal, 282 , 3661–3668

Richardson, L., & St. Pierre, E. A. (2005). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 959–978). Sage.

Tress, G., Tress, B., & Saunders, D. A. (2014). How to write a paper for successful publication in an international peer-reviewed journal. Pacific Conservation Biology, 20 (1), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1071/PC140017

Verde Arregoitia, L. D., & González-Suárez, M. (2019). From conference abstract to publication in the conservation science literature. Conservation Biology, 33 (5), 1164–1173. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13296

Wellstead, G., Whitehurst, K., Gundogan, B., & Agha, R. (2017). How to deliver an oral presentation. International Journal of Surgery Oncology, 2 (6), e25. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJ9.0000000000000025

Woolston, C. (2016). Conference presentations: Lead the poster parade. Nature, 536 (7614), 115–117

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Health Science, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia

Rob Davidson

Discipline of Medical Radiation Science, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia

Chandra Makanjee

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chandra Makanjee .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Medical Imaging, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Burnaby, BC, Canada

Euclid Seeram

Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Canberra, ACT, Australia

Robert Davidson

Brookfield Health Sciences, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

Andrew England

Mark F. McEntee

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Davidson, R., Makanjee, C. (2021). Communicating Research Findings. In: Seeram, E., Davidson, R., England, A., McEntee, M.F. (eds) Research for Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79956-4_7

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79956-4_7

Published : 03 January 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-79955-7

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-79956-4

eBook Packages : Biomedical and Life Sciences Biomedical and Life Sciences (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

Select "Patients / Caregivers / Public" or "Researchers / Professionals" to filter your results. To further refine your search, toggle appropriate sections on or off.

Home > Cancer Researchers / Other Health Care Professionals > Education and Training > Communicating Science to the Public

Communicating Science to the Public

• AACR on Campus Brazil
• Opportunities for Medical Students, Residents, Clinicians, and Physician-scientists
• Cancer Careers: Find or Post a Job
• Diversity in Clinical Trial Design: AACR Educational Workshop
• Meetings and Workshops Calendar
• Accreditation
• Continuing Medical Education Credits for Manuscript Reviews
• Frequently Asked Questions About Continuing Medical Education
• Professional and Career Advancement Sessions
• Associate Membership
• Announcements and Messages
• Make a Charitable Donation to AACR Science Education
• Awards, Prizes, and Opportunities
• Mentoring Opportunities for AACR Members
• Student Membership
• Resources for Students
• Support AACR Science Education

Recent years have been marked by remarkable scientific progress—particularly in cancer research—but also by a decline trust in the scientific enterprise among the public.

Scientists have a responsibility to communicate scientific advances and their benefits to the public. Cancer researchers can play a vital role in quelling misinformation, educating patients and caregivers about important scientific advances, and helping policy makers make informed decisions regarding health care policy and research funding.

With its vast experience in communicating science to diverse audiences, the AACR is ideally positioned to provide cancer scientists and clinicians with the tools and training to effectively explain their research to the world. During his term as 2023-2024 AACR President, Philip D. Greenberg, MD, FAACR, launched a program to help cancer scientists improve their communication skills.

The first element of this new program was a special educational session held during the AACR Annual Meeting 2024 (April 5-10, San Diego, California). Titled “Strategies to Effectively Communicate Science to the Public,” the session provided scientists with strategies for translating complex, technical information about their scientific findings into readily understood messages for the media, policy makers, and the public.

Additional educational opportunities will be offered in the coming year. In the meantime, this initial session is available for viewing below.

Strategies to Effectively Communicate Science to the Public

AACR Annual Meeting 2024 Saturday, April 6, 2024

Session Program

• Moderator William G. Nelson, Editor-in-Chief, Cancer Today Magazine Director, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, Maryland
• Introduction Philip D. Greenberg, 2023-2024 AACR President Rona Jaffe Foundation Endowed Chair and Professor and Head of the Program in Immunology Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington
• The importance of communicating science to the public [05:15] William G. Nelson
• Communicating to underserved communities [20:12] Lisa A. Newman, Steering Committee, AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report 2022 Chief, Section of Breast Surgery, New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, New York
• Communicating science to policy makers [32:26] Mary C. Beckerle, AACR Science Policy and Government Affairs Committee Professor of Biology, CEO & Director, University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, Utah
• Communicating science to patients and advocates [48:10] Bianca N. Islam, Scientist Mentor, AACR Scientist↔Survivor Program® Gastroenterology Research Fellow, Case Western Reserve University/University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio
• Assisting journalists with accurate reporting [1:00:37] Clifton Leaf, Adjunct Professor of Journalism, Columbia University School of Journalism, New York, New York Global Fellow, Ellison Institute of Technology Former Editor-in-Chief, FORTUNE
• Panel Discussion / Audience Questions [1:13:28]

Your donation to the American Association for Cancer Research helps our more than 58,000 members worldwide drive progress against cancer.

• Healthcare Professionals Membership
• What Is Cancer Research
• Various Types of Cancer

2024 Theses Doctoral

Modeling User Engagement on Online Social Platforms - A Context-Aware Machine Learning Approach

Peters, Heinrich

This dissertation examines the predictability of user engagement on online social platforms by integrating theoretical perspectives from the literature on media and technology habits with principles of context-aware computing. It presents three studies, each targeting a different facet of technology-mediated communication, from social media use in general to more granular behaviors like active and passive use and instant messaging. The first chapter proposes a novel approach to the study of social media habits through predictive modeling of sequential smartphone user behaviors. Using longitudinal smartphone app log data, it examines the predictability of app engagement as a way to capture a critical yet previously neglected aspect of media and technology habits: their embeddedness in repetitive behavioral sequences. The study employs Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) and transformer neural networks to demonstrate that social media use follows predictable patterns over time and that its predictability varies substantially across individuals. T he second chapter shifts focus to the potential of context-aware modeling as a holistic yet parsimonious and privacy-preserving approach to predicting user engagement on online social platforms. Analyzing over 100 million Snapchat sessions from nearly 80,000 users via deep LSTM neural networks, the study demonstrates the predictability of active and passive use based on past behavior and a notable improvement in predictive performance upon integrating momentary context information. Features related to connectivity status, location, temporal context, and weather were found to capture non-redundant variance in user engagement relative to features derived from histories of in-app behaviors. The findings are consistent with the idea of context-contingent, habit-driven patterns of active and passive use, highlighting the utility of contextualized representations of user behavior for predicting user engagement on online social platforms. The third chapter investigates the predictability of attentiveness and responsiveness in instant messaging on a large online social platform. Utilizing metadata from over 19 million messages, the study examines the predictive power of a wide range of predictor groups, including message attributes, user attributes, and momentary context, as well as historical communication patterns within ego networks and dyadic relationships. The findings echo the overarching theme that habitual behaviors and contextual factors shape user engagement. However, in this case, dyad-specific messaging histories account for the overwhelming share of explained variance, underlining the socially interdependent nature of user engagement in instant messaging. Collectively, the three studies presented in this dissertation make a theoretical contribution by establishing media and technology habits as a suitable framework for the study of user engagement and by introducing a novel perspective that emphasizes the repetitive, predictable, and context-dependent nature of media and technology habits. The research makes an important empirical contribution through the use of novel, large-scale, objective behavioral data, enhancing the ecological validity and real-world applicability of its findings. Methodologically, it pioneers the use of context-aware sequential machine learning techniques for the study of media and technology habits. The insights garnered from this research have the potential to inform the design of engaging and ethical online social platforms and mobile technologies, highlighting its practical implications for the billions of users navigating these digital environments on a daily basis.

• Instant messaging
• Computer science
• Social media
• Machine learning
• Neural networks (Computer science)
• Longitudinal method
• Snapchat (Electronic resource)

This item is currently under embargo. It will be available starting 2026-04-21.

More About This Work

• DOI Copy DOI to clipboard

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
• Can Oncol Nurs J
• v.27(3); Summer 2017

Communicating your research

Several years of Research Reflections have provided instruction and supportive guidance to assist both novice and advanced scholars in conducting and appraising nursing research. From developing a strong research question to critically evaluating the quality of a published study, the ultimate purpose of nursing research is to disseminate findings in order to have an impact on clinical practice. This objective is contained within the notion of knowledge translation (KT). The Canadian Institutes for Health Research ( CIHR, 2016 ) defines KT as “a dynamic and iterative process” consisting of several steps that foster the creation, and subsequent dissemination, of knowledge for the purpose of improving the health of Canadians by strengthening healthcare services. A short list of additional terms imbued with similar purpose and meaning to KT include knowledge exchange, implementation, research utilization, diffusion, and knowledge transfer. Graham and colleagues (2006) suggested that confusion arising from multiple methodologies and theories for disseminating research findings be clarified to ensure that they are not “lost in knowledge translation” (p.13). Indeed, for both novice and experienced researchers an awkward and frustrating disconnect can exist between generated research knowledge and crucial stakeholders it was meant to inform. Unless research results are communicated with others in a way that is effective and meaningful, potentially important and practice-changing knowledge could slip into the obscurity of a file cabinet or rarely-cited manuscript.

Communication is the key to disseminating research results. Communication is commonly defined as a verbal and nonverbal means of exchanging information, but it also embodies the notion of making connections and building relationships. Therefore, learning how to effectively communicate with a variety of audiences about research is an important skill. The most familiar ways in which nurse researchers communicate research results is by publishing in the academic literature and doing conference presentations (both oral sessions and posters). These strategies do allow the sharing of research findings with specific audiences, and probably target higher level stakeholders but, ultimately, may not generate long-lasting results or improvements in clinical practice. In developing a comprehensive communication plan, researchers are being encouraged to not only be creative in how they communicate findings, but to draw on an evolving body of theory as to how knowledge actually gets taken up in practice.

Effective communication consists of both obtaining an intended outcome, as well as evoking a vivid impression. Ponterotto and Grieger (2007) suggested that improved communication of research results is associated with strong research skills, as well as the use of “thick description” in targeted writing. Indeed, acting like a marketing executive, in order to effectively communicate about research findings, the researcher needs to carefully construct a communications plan that incorporates creative means to target a variety of audiences. Variety is not only the spice of life, it also increases the opportunity for knowledge uptake and dissemination, thereby simultaneously raising the likelihood that research findings will find a way into clinical application.

Some inspired and impactful ways that researchers can communicate their research include:

• performative (or interpretive) dance
• curating exhibits at local museums or art galleries
• authoring colloquial books, magazine articles, and newsletter pieces
• hosting open-forum philosopher’s cafés (for example, the CIHR “café scientifique”)
• writing theatre-based performance pieces
• facilitating focus groups and round table discussions
• doing on-site in-services for nursing staff
• developing blogs and project-specific websites
• utilizing social media platforms like Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook
• posting mural or graphic poster projects in public spaces or business lobbies
• creating an “explainer video” to post on YouTube or organizational websites
• producing a colourful brochure or flyer highlighting key points and findings
• partnering with other researchers working on similar research questions
• regular, strategic networking with clinicians and other stakeholders.

This is just a sampling of strategies researchers can utilize to capture the attention of target audiences and disseminate findings in a way that is both resourceful and consequential. Each idea can build and strengthen relationships between the researcher, the research findings, and a greater community that may be interested in this knowledge.

While there is no ‘right’ method to communicate knowledge gleaned from research, it is possible to elevate knowledge translation strategies to maximize impact. Ask yourself, ‘what is the ultimate goal for this research?’ Is it to impact clinical practice, describe a phenomenon, or improve health outcomes? Carefully consider who the best audiences might be to understand and respond to the research findings. Is it front-line clinicians? Students? Advanced practice nurses? By naming the group (or groups) that might benefit from the findings and then marrying their community priorities and values with the overarching goals for research dissemination, the researcher can generate innovative and authentic ideas to sharpen and amplify communication strategies.

• Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Knowledge translation at CIHR. 2016. Jul 28, Retrieved from www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/29418.html .
• Graham I, Logan J, Harrison M, Straus S, Tetroe J, Caswell W, Robinson N. Lost in knowledge translation: Time for a map? The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions. 2006; 26 :13–24. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ponterotto JG, Grieger I. Effectively communicating qualitative research. The Counseling Psychologist. 2007; 35 (3):404–430. doi: 10.1177/0011000006287443. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

How immune cells communicate to fight viruses

Chemokines are signalling proteins that orchestrate the interaction of immune cells against pathogens and tumours. To understand this complex network, various techniques have been developed to identify chemokine-producing cells. However, it has not yet been possible to determine which cells react to these chemokines. Researchers at the University Hospital Bonn (UKB) and the University of Bonn have developed a new class of genetically modified mice that enables the simultaneous identification of chemokine producers and sensors. Using the chemokine Ccl3 as a "proof of principle," they discovered that its function in the immune defence against viruses is different than had been previously assumed. Their results have now been published in the Journal of Experimental Medicine.

Our immune response to infections is critically controlled by chemokines. In order to understand how these signalling proteins coordinate immune cells, researchers from Bonn took a closer look at the chemokine Ccl3. Using a novel technology known as Ccl3-EASER mice, they investigated its role in coordinating the immune response to cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, which can lead to severe diseases in immunocompromised individuals. "Until now, it was thought that certain macrophages, cells which colonize all organs as immune guardians, produce Ccl3 to attract antiviral immune cells," says co-senior author Prof. Dr. Christian Kurts, Director of the Institute of Molecular Medicine and Experimental Immunology (IMMEI) at the UKB. He is also a member of the Transdisciplinary Research Area 3 (TRA 3) "Life & Health" and the Cluster of Excellence Immunosensation 2 at the University of Bonn.

NK cells are both chemokine producers and sensors

"However, we actually found that the natural killer cells -- NK cells for short -- are the most important Ccl3 producers during CMV infection," says co-senior author Prof. Dr. Natalio Garbi, research group leader from IMMEI at the UKB. He is also a member of the Cluster of Excellence Immunosensation 2 at the University of Bonn. NK cells are white blood cells that can directly destroy virus-infected body cells. The scientists found that NK cells are in a permanent alarm mode to be ready for rapid Ccl3 production. As soon as a viral infection occurs, the body releases type I interferon as an alarm signal. This triggers the NK cells to rapidly produce the chemokine Ccl3. "However, NK cells are not only the cellular source, i.e. the producers of Ccl3, but also the main sensors for the chemokine in this context," says co-senior author Prof. Dr. Niels A. Lemmermann, research group leader from the Institute of Virology at the UKB and member of the Cluster of Excellence Immunosensation 2 at the University of Bonn. This means that Ccl3 acts as an auto/paracrine signal through which NK cells communicate directly with each other and coordinate their antiviral response.

"The experimental strategy used here is completely new. It can also be used for messenger substances other than Ccl3, which are released during various infections, diverse forms of inflammation or cancers," explains Dr. Maria Belen Rodrigo, first author and scientist at the IMMEI of the UKB. With this work, the Bonn researchers have succeeded in gaining a better understanding of the complex choreography of immune cells in the defence against viruses.

• Immune System
• Medical Topics
• Biotechnology and Bioengineering
• Biotechnology
• Molecular Biology
• Brain tumor
• Immune system
• White blood cell
• Natural killer cell
• Cells of the stomach
• Transgenic plants

Story Source:

Materials provided by Universitatsklinikum Bonn . Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference :

• Maria Belen Rodrigo, Anna De Min, Selina Kathleen Jorch, Cristina Martin-Higueras, Ann-Kathrin Baumgart, Beata Goldyn, Sara Becker, Natalio Garbi, Niels A. Lemmermann, Christian Kurts. Dual fluorescence reporter mice for Ccl3 transcription, translation, and intercellular communication . Journal of Experimental Medicine , 2024; 221 (7) DOI: 10.1084/jem.20231814

Cite This Page :

Explore More

• Loneliness Runs Deep Among Parents
• Food in Sight? The Liver Is Ready!
• Acid Reflux Drugs and Risk of Migraine
• Do Cells Have a Hidden Communication System?
• Mice Given Mouse-Rat Brains Can Smell Again
• How Do Birds Flock? New Aerodynamics
• Cancer: Epigenetic Origin Without DNA Mutation
• Climate Change Driving Biodiversity Loss
• Why Can't Robots Outrun Animals?
• Evolution of Gliding in Marsupials

Trending Topics

Strange & offbeat.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Teens and social media: Key findings from Pew Research Center surveys

For the latest survey data on social media and tech use among teens, see “ Teens, Social Media, and Technology 2023 .” 

Today’s teens are navigating a digital landscape unlike the one experienced by their predecessors, particularly when it comes to the pervasive presence of social media. In 2022, Pew Research Center fielded an in-depth survey asking American teens – and their parents – about their experiences with and views toward social media . Here are key findings from the survey:

Pew Research Center conducted this study to better understand American teens’ experiences with social media and their parents’ perception of these experiences. For this analysis, we surveyed 1,316 U.S. teens ages 13 to 17, along with one parent from each teen’s household. The survey was conducted online by Ipsos from April 14 to May 4, 2022.

This research was reviewed and approved by an external institutional review board (IRB), Advarra, which is an independent committee of experts that specializes in helping to protect the rights of research participants.

Ipsos invited panelists who were a parent of at least one teen ages 13 to 17 from its KnowledgePanel , a probability-based web panel recruited primarily through national, random sampling of residential addresses, to take this survey. For some of these questions, parents were asked to think about one teen in their household. (If they had multiple teenage children ages 13 to 17 in the household, one was randomly chosen.) This teen was then asked to answer questions as well. The parent portion of the survey is weighted to be representative of U.S. parents of teens ages 13 to 17 by age, gender, race, ethnicity, household income and other categories. The teen portion of the survey is weighted to be representative of U.S. teens ages 13 to 17 who live with parents by age, gender, race, ethnicity, household income and other categories.

Here are the questions used  for this report, along with responses, and its  methodology .

Majorities of teens report ever using YouTube, TikTok, Instagram and Snapchat. YouTube is the platform most commonly used by teens, with 95% of those ages 13 to 17 saying they have ever used it, according to a Center survey conducted April 14-May 4, 2022, that asked about 10 online platforms. Two-thirds of teens report using TikTok, followed by roughly six-in-ten who say they use Instagram (62%) and Snapchat (59%). Much smaller shares of teens say they have ever used Twitter (23%), Twitch (20%), WhatsApp (17%), Reddit (14%) and Tumblr (5%).

Facebook use among teens dropped from 71% in 2014-15 to 32% in 2022. Twitter and Tumblr also experienced declines in teen users during that span, but Instagram and Snapchat saw notable increases.

TikTok use is more common among Black teens and among teen girls. For example, roughly eight-in-ten Black teens (81%) say they use TikTok, compared with 71% of Hispanic teens and 62% of White teens. And Hispanic teens (29%) are more likely than Black (19%) or White teens (10%) to report using WhatsApp. (There were not enough Asian teens in the sample to analyze separately.)

Teens’ use of certain social media platforms also varies by gender. Teen girls are more likely than teen boys to report using TikTok (73% vs. 60%), Instagram (69% vs. 55%) and Snapchat (64% vs. 54%). Boys are more likely than girls to report using YouTube (97% vs. 92%), Twitch (26% vs. 13%) and Reddit (20% vs. 8%).

Majorities of teens use YouTube and TikTok every day, and some report using these sites almost constantly. About three-quarters of teens (77%) say they use YouTube daily, while a smaller majority of teens (58%) say the same about TikTok. About half of teens use Instagram (50%) or Snapchat (51%) at least once a day, while 19% report daily use of Facebook.

Some teens report using these platforms almost constantly. For example, 19% say they use YouTube almost constantly, while 16% and 15% say the same about TikTok and Snapchat, respectively.

More than half of teens say it would be difficult for them to give up social media. About a third of teens (36%) say they spend too much time on social media, while 55% say they spend about the right amount of time there and just 8% say they spend too little time. Girls are more likely than boys to say they spend too much time on social media (41% vs. 31%).

Teens are relatively divided over whether it would be hard or easy for them to give up social media. Some 54% say it would be very or somewhat hard, while 46% say it would be very or somewhat easy.

Girls are more likely than boys to say it would be difficult for them to give up social media (58% vs. 49%). Older teens are also more likely than younger teens to say this: 58% of those ages 15 to 17 say it would be very or somewhat hard to give up social media, compared with 48% of those ages 13 to 14.

Teens are more likely to say social media has had a negative effect on others than on themselves. Some 32% say social media has had a mostly negative effect on people their age, while 9% say this about social media’s effect on themselves.

Conversely, teens are more likely to say these platforms have had a mostly positive impact on their own life than on those of their peers. About a third of teens (32%) say social media has had a mostly positive effect on them personally, while roughly a quarter (24%) say it has been positive for other people their age.

Still, the largest shares of teens say social media has had neither a positive nor negative effect on themselves (59%) or on other teens (45%). These patterns are consistent across demographic groups.

Teens are more likely to report positive than negative experiences in their social media use. Majorities of teens report experiencing each of the four positive experiences asked about: feeling more connected to what is going on in their friends’ lives (80%), like they have a place where they can show their creative side (71%), like they have people who can support them through tough times (67%), and that they are more accepted (58%).

When it comes to negative experiences, 38% of teens say that what they see on social media makes them feel overwhelmed because of all the drama. Roughly three-in-ten say it makes them feel like their friends are leaving them out of things (31%) or feel pressure to post content that will get lots of comments or likes (29%). And 23% say that what they see on social media makes them feel worse about their own life.

There are several gender differences in the experiences teens report having while on social media. Teen girls are more likely than teen boys to say that what they see on social media makes them feel a lot like they have a place to express their creativity or like they have people who can support them. However, girls also report encountering some of the pressures at higher rates than boys. Some 45% of girls say they feel overwhelmed because of all the drama on social media, compared with 32% of boys. Girls are also more likely than boys to say social media has made them feel like their friends are leaving them out of things (37% vs. 24%) or feel worse about their own life (28% vs. 18%).

When it comes to abuse on social media platforms, many teens think criminal charges or permanent bans would help a lot. Half of teens think criminal charges or permanent bans for users who bully or harass others on social media would help a lot to reduce harassment and bullying on these platforms. 

About four-in-ten teens say it would help a lot if social media companies proactively deleted abusive posts or required social media users to use their real names and pictures. Three-in-ten teens say it would help a lot if school districts monitored students’ social media activity for bullying or harassment.

Some teens – especially older girls – avoid posting certain things on social media because of fear of embarrassment or other reasons. Roughly four-in-ten teens say they often or sometimes decide not to post something on social media because they worry people might use it to embarrass them (40%) or because it does not align with how they like to represent themselves on these platforms (38%). A third of teens say they avoid posting certain things out of concern for offending others by what they say, while 27% say they avoid posting things because it could hurt their chances when applying for schools or jobs.

These concerns are more prevalent among older teen girls. For example, roughly half of girls ages 15 to 17 say they often or sometimes decide not to post something on social media because they worry people might use it to embarrass them (50%) or because it doesn’t fit with how they’d like to represent themselves on these sites (51%), compared with smaller shares among younger girls and among boys overall.

Many teens do not feel like they are in the driver’s seat when it comes to controlling what information social media companies collect about them. Six-in-ten teens say they think they have little (40%) or no control (20%) over the personal information that social media companies collect about them. Another 26% aren’t sure how much control they have. Just 14% of teens think they have a lot of control.

Despite many feeling a lack of control, teens are largely unconcerned about companies collecting their information. Only 8% are extremely concerned about the amount of personal information that social media companies might have and 13% are very concerned. Still, 44% of teens say they have little or no concern about how much these companies might know about them.

Only around one-in-five teens think their parents are highly worried about their use of social media. Some 22% of teens think their parents are extremely or very worried about them using social media. But a larger share of teens (41%) think their parents are either not at all (16%) or a little worried (25%) about them using social media. About a quarter of teens (27%) fall more in the middle, saying they think their parents are somewhat worried.

Many teens also believe there is a disconnect between parental perceptions of social media and teens’ lived realities. Some 39% of teens say their experiences on social media are better than parents think, and 27% say their experiences are worse. A third of teens say parents’ views are about right.

Nearly half of parents with teens (46%) are highly worried that their child could be exposed to explicit content on social media. Parents of teens are more likely to be extremely or very concerned about this than about social media causing mental health issues like anxiety, depression or lower self-esteem. Some parents also fret about time management problems for their teen stemming from social media use, such as wasting time on these sites (42%) and being distracted from completing homework (38%).

Note: Here are the questions used  for this report, along with responses, and its  methodology .

CORRECTION (May 17, 2023): In a previous version of this post, the percentages of teens using Instagram and Snapchat daily were transposed in the text. The original chart was correct. This change does not substantively affect the analysis.

• Age & Generations
• Age, Generations & Tech
• Internet & Technology
• Platforms & Services
• Social Media
• Teens & Tech
• Teens & Youth

Emily A. Vogels is a former research associate focusing on internet and technology at Pew Research Center

Risa Gelles-Watnick is a research analyst focusing on internet and technology research at Pew Research Center

How Teens and Parents Approach Screen Time

Who are you the art and science of measuring identity, u.s. centenarian population is projected to quadruple over the next 30 years, older workers are growing in number and earning higher wages, teens, social media and technology 2023, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

In the brain, bursts of beta rhythms implement cognitive control

Bursts of brain rhythms with “beta” frequencies control where and when neurons in the cortex process sensory information and plan responses. Studying these bursts would improve understanding of cognition and clinical disorders, researchers argue in a new review.

The brain processes information on many scales. Individual cells electrochemically transmit signals in circuits but at the large scale required to produce cognition, millions of cells act in concert, driven by rhythmic signals at varying frequencies. Studying one frequency range in particular, beta rhythms between about 14-30 Hz, holds the key to understanding how the brain controls cognitive processes—or loses control in some disorders—a team of neuroscientists argues in a new review article.

Drawing on experimental data, mathematical modeling and theory, the scientists make the case that bursts of beta rhythms control cognition in the brain by regulating where and when higher gamma frequency waves can coordinate neurons to incorporate new information from the senses or formulate plans of action. Beta bursts, they argue, quickly establish flexible but controlled patterns of neural activity for implementing intentional thought.

“Cognition depends on organizing goal-directed thought, so if you want to understand cognition, you have to understand that organization,” said co-author Earl K. Miller , Picower Professor in The Picower Institute for Learning and Memory and the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT. “Beta is the range of frequencies that can control neurons at the right spatial scale to produce organized thought.”

Miller and colleagues Mikael Lundqvist, Jonatan Nordmark and Johan Liljefors at the Karolinska Institutet and Pawel Herman at the KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden, write that studying bursts of beta rhythms to understand how they emerge and what they represent would not only help explain cognition, but also aid in diagnosing and treating cognitive disorders.

“Given the relevance of beta oscillations in cognition, we foresee a major change in the practice for biomarker identification, especially given the prominence of beta bursting in inhibitory control processes … and their importance in ADHD, schizophrenia and Alzheimer’s disease,” they write in the journal Trends in Cognitive Sciences .

Experimental studies covering several species including humans, a variety of brain regions, and numerous cognitive tasks have revealed key characteristics of beta waves in the cortex, the authors write: Beta rhythms occur in quick but powerful bursts; they inhibit the power of higher frequency gamma rhythms; and though they originate in deeper brain regions, they travel within specific locations of cortex. Considering these properties together, the authors write that they are all consistent with precise and flexible regulation, in space and time, of the gamma rhythm activity that experiments show carry signals of sensory information and motor plans.

“Beta bursts thus offer new opportunities for studying how sensory inputs are selectively processed, reshaped by inhibitory cognitive operations and ultimately result in motor actions,” the authors write.

For one example, Miller and colleagues have shown in animals that in the prefrontal cortex in working memory tasks, beta bursts direct when gamma activity can store new sensory information, read out the information when it needs to be used, and then discard it when it’s no longer relevant. For another example, other researchers have shown that beta rises when human volunteers are asked to suppress a previously learned association between word pairs, or to forget a cue because it will no longer be used in a task.

In a paper last year, Lundqvist, Herman, Miller and others cited several lines of experimental evidence to hypothesize that beta bursts implement cognitive control spatially in the brain , essentially constraining patches of the cortex to represent the general rules of a task even as individual neurons within those patches represent the specific contents of information. For example, if the working memory task is to remember a pad lock combination, beta rhythms will implement patches of cortex for the general steps “turn left,” “turn right,” “turn left again,” allowing gamma to enable neurons within each patch to store and later recall the specific numbers of the combination. The two-fold value of such an organizing principle, they noted, is that the brain can rapidly apply task rules to many neurons at a time and do so without having to re-establish the overall structure of the task if the individual numbers change (i.e. you set a new combination).

Another important phenomenon of beta bursts, the authors write, is that they propagate across long distances in the brain, spanning multiple regions. Studying the direction of their spatial travels, as well as their timing, could shed further light on how cognitive control is implemented.

New ideas beget new questions

Beta rhythm bursts can differ not only in their frequency, but also their duration, amplitude, origin and other characteristics. This variety speaks to their versatility, the authors write, but also obliges neuroscientists to study and understand these many different forms of the phenomenon and what they represent to harness more information from these neural signals.

“It quickly becomes very complicated, but I think the most important aspect of beta bursts is the very simple and basic premise that they shed light on the transient nature of oscillations and neural processes associated with cognition,” Lundqvist said.“This changes our models of cognition and will impact everything we do. For a long time we implicitly or explicitly assumed oscillations are ongoing which has colored experiments and analyses. Now we see a first wave of studies based on this new thinking, with new hypothesis and ways to analyze data, and it should only pick up in years to come.” 

The authors acknowledge another major issue that must be resolved by further research—How do beta bursts emerge in the first place to perform their apparent role in cognitive control?

“It is unknown how beta bursts arise as a mediator of an executive command that cascades to other regions of the brain,” the authors write.

The authors don’t claim to have all the answers. Instead, they write, because beta rhythms appear to have an integral role in controlling cognition, the as yet unanswered questions are worth asking.

“We propose that beta bursts provide both experimental and computational studies with a window through which to explore the real-time organization and execution of cognitive functions,” they conclude. “To fully leverage this potential there is a need to address the outstanding questions with new experimental paradigms, analytical methods and modeling approaches.”

Related Articles

Paper: to understand cognition—and its dysfunction—neuroscientists must learn its rhythms.

Study reveals a universal pattern of brain wave frequencies

Anesthesia blocks sensation by cutting off communication within the cortex

Anesthesia technology precisely controls unconsciousness in animal tests