How communications helps researchers secure funding
Someone in a national lab’s comms team recently told me how much busier things were these days. ‘Any reason?’ I asked. ‘Our scientists,’ they answered, ‘have realised that if they want more funding, they need to demonstrate what they’ve done with their funding so far’.
That reflects how research funders now operate. Innovate UK and UKRI websites are awash with phrases like ‘demonstrable contribution…to society and the economy’. The Data City notes public funding for universities is being tied to contributions to the Modern Industrial Strategy. The Economist pointed out that, for a university’s government funding, “one case study proving the real-world impact of research can now be worth the same as publishing ten academic papers.”
Equally, industry values academic expertise, and will fund targeted research in areas like AI, materials, biotech or robotics – if it sees potential value.
Funders are looking beyond outputs like papers. They want to see impact, adoption, and signals that the work is benefitting industry.
What does good research communication look like?
The knee-jerk reaction of scientists can be to hastily send bits of information the comms team and ask them to promote it. That is better than nothing, but not a reliable way to influence funders.
Better to be more strategic. Research programmes need a credible narrative which shows how their collective work translates to real-world value. Then they need to regularly tell stories and share insights that back up that narrative, across their organisation’s channels, the media, and social.
The main challenge researchers face is telling good stories. It’s easy to get lost in the details, which is not what funders or industrial partners want. Equally, it’s easy to zoom too far out – no one needs three paragraphs explaining that the planet will burn unless we take action now, before introducing your work on materials-saving battery membranes.
Storytelling is an art. Effective research stories frame the actual problem they address, explain how the research or innovation fits, and clearly show the real or potential outcomes.
They do so with engaging storylines, and use of language that draws people in so non-specialists, including funders, see the relevance and feel excited about the potential.
Take this piece on how NPL’s work in quantum technologies could benefit banks. It starts with a bold visualisation of a quantum-enabled future, presented at a human level. Then it explains – clearly, but without dumbing down – what technologies will enable those changes, how they are progressing, and what needs to happen next.
In doing so, it shows NPL’s role and expertise in accelerating quantum, and so the importance of keeping its work here funded. If such pieces are produced regularly, and promoted in the right places, the right people notice.
If you get the stories right, and map out a consistent communications plan for them, the rest follows naturally. Journalists are interested in new research and like hearing from credible academic voices. In a world of clickbait and ragebait, thoughtful content from experts is a welcome relief.
What’s holding researchers back?
The reason many academics don’t get the voice they deserve is usually down to one of two things: (1) Capacity – their comms teams don’t have time to write up and share everyone’s stories; or (2) Storytelling – the stories feel like they are written for other academics.
By working with communicators, who are also sufficiently expert in the subject matter to see where the novel storylines lie, both problems can be solved, and researchers can get the visibility – and funding – they deserve.
Those who invest in communicating their work demonstrate relevance, build confidence, and secure ongoing funding. Those who don’t may be overlooked – not because their work lacks quality, but because its value is not visible.