Improving Use of Research Evidence: Insights from Communication Science

"In the article titled “Improving Use of Research Evidence: Insights from Communication Science,” published in the June 2020 issue of NNERPP Extra, a quarterly magazine produced by the National Network of Education Research-Practice Partnerships, Rutgers research professors Itzhak Yanovitzky and Cynthia L. Blitz advocate that research use should be viewed as a continuum rather than a binary state of use versus non-use.

They say that traditional approaches to evaluating use of research evidence often incorrectly measure success by tracking what evidence is used rather than how it is used, and that this approach fails to acknowledge the complex cognitive and social processes involved in seeking, acquiring, filtering, interpreting, and applying research evidence. Instead, they advocate that organizations should map users' evidence routines to understand their unique contexts.

The authors posit that many interventions targeted use of research evidence incorrectly assume there are capacity or opportunity gaps, whereas motivation may be the actual barrier. Effective solutions require accurate problem identification, they write, and use of research evidence depends on three key factors:

• Capacity: users' skills and tools for finding and interpreting evidence

• Motivation: internal drivers (perceived value, social norms) and external incentives

• Opportunity: structural factors like access to research, time constraints, and support resources

Communication science places audiences at the center of research evidence use through two key approaches:

• Targeting: identifying homogeneous sub-audiences who would benefit from similar interventions, based on relevant dimensions like capacity, motivation, and opportunity rather than demographics

• Tailoring: customizing interventions to address specific audience needs, such as building self-efficacy for those who lack confidence or offering incentives to those who don't see value in research use

The authors emphasize the importance of pretesting communication approaches and anticipating unintended effects, acknowledging that research must be interpreted responsibly to avoid bias and misuse."