At a conference last year, a university communications director told me: "We're building a science communication strategy." I asked what she meant. She meant writing press releases about research papers and posting about them on LinkedIn.
That's not science communication. It's not even research communication — not really. It's research promotion, which is a much smaller, much less interesting thing.
These terms get used interchangeably in universities, but they describe different activities with different audiences, different methods, and different goals. If you don't understand the difference, you'll invest in the wrong things and measure the wrong outcomes.
Science Communication: The Big Picture
Science communication is a broad field. It covers any activity that communicates scientific knowledge, methods, or values to non-specialist audiences. Museum exhibitions. Science festivals. TV documentaries. Popular science books. School outreach. YouTube channels. Podcasts. Journalism.
The defining characteristic of science communication is that it typically communicates established science — the consensus view, the settled findings, the body of knowledge that the scientific community broadly accepts. It's educational. It builds public understanding of science as a whole. The audience is the general public, and the goal is usually awareness, engagement, or trust.
When Brian Cox explains the life cycle of stars on a BBC documentary, that's science communication. When a museum installs an interactive exhibit about DNA, that's science communication. When a university runs a stall at a community science fair, that's science communication.
Research Communication: The Specific Story
Research communication is narrower. It communicates specific research findings — often from a single study, project, or programme — to audiences who need or want to know about them. The research may not yet be settled. It may be contested. It may be preliminary. The task is to communicate what was found, how it was found, and why it matters — accurately, but accessibly.
The audience for research communication is typically more targeted than the audience for science communication. It might be policymakers who need evidence to inform a decision. Industry partners who could commercialise the findings. Patients who could benefit from a new treatment. Alumni donors who want to understand what their university produces. Fellow researchers in adjacent fields. Journalists who might cover the story.
When a university press office writes a feature about a newly published paper, that's research communication. When a Horizon Europe consortium produces a magazine explaining its results to stakeholders, that's research communication. When a research institute publishes a policy briefing based on its latest findings, that's research communication.
Why the Distinction Matters
1. Different audiences, different content
Science communication addresses a broad public that may have little prior knowledge. It often starts from first principles and builds understanding gradually. Research communication addresses audiences who typically have some stake in the research — they funded it, they could use it, they need to know about it. They may already have context. They may want detail that a general audience would find overwhelming.
If you use science communication techniques for a research communication audience, you'll bore them. If you use research communication techniques for a science communication audience, you'll lose them.
2. Different timelines
Science communication is typically evergreen. The life cycle of a star doesn't change. Research communication is time-sensitive. It's tied to specific findings, specific publications, specific policy windows. A research communication piece published six months too late is worthless. A science communication piece published six months later is still useful.
This has implications for how you resource and plan. Science communication can be scheduled. Research communication needs to be responsive — ready to move when the findings are ready, when the policy window opens, when the journal accepts the paper.
3. Different skills
Science communication often favours explainers — writers and presenters who can make complex ideas simple. Research communication requires something slightly different: the ability to find the story in a specific set of findings, to interview researchers effectively, to identify the angle that makes a piece of research newsworthy or policy-relevant.
The best research communicators tend to come from journalism, not from science communication. They know how to find a story, structure a narrative, and extract a usable quote from a reluctant academic. These are reporting skills, not explaining skills.
4. Different metrics for success
Science communication is often measured by reach and engagement: how many people attended the event, watched the video, visited the exhibition. Research communication should be measured by outcomes: did a policymaker cite the research? Did a funder renew the grant? Did an industry partner request a meeting? Did a journalist write about it?
If you're measuring research communication success with the same metrics you'd use for science communication, you're measuring the wrong thing.
Where Most Universities Get This Wrong
Most universities collapse everything into one bucket labelled "communications." The same team, using the same skills and the same metrics, produces science festival stalls, research press releases, alumni magazines, policy briefings, and social media content.
The result is that none of it is done particularly well. The science communication is too detailed and technical. The research communication is too generic and decontextualised. The alumni magazine reads like a press release. The policy briefing reads like a magazine article.
The fix isn't to hire more people. It's to recognise that different kinds of communication require different skills and different approaches — and to commission specialist support for the things your generalist team isn't equipped to do.
What This Means for Your Institution
If you're responsible for university communications, ask yourself three questions:
- Do I know which of my activities are science communication and which are research communication? If the answer is no, you're probably doing both badly.
- Do I have the right skills for each? Your team might be great at science festivals and terrible at writing research features — or vice versa. Understand your gaps.
- Am I measuring the right things for each? Science communication metrics (reach, engagement) for research communication activities will mislead you. Research communication metrics (policy citations, partnership enquiries) for science communication activities will make you think you're failing when you're not.
At Stokel Publishing, we specialise in research communication. We write research magazines, impact case studies, policy briefings, and press features — all of which require the ability to find the story in specific research findings and tell it in a way that engages the right audience. We don't do science festivals. We don't do museum exhibits. We do one thing, and we do it well.
If your institution needs help with the research communication side of things — the part that turns specific findings into compelling narratives for specific audiences — that's what we're here for.