Communicating the Value of Research: Contractor's Final Report (2009)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

NCHRP 20-78: Final Report Page 2 INTRODUCTION The goal of this study was to examine ways to effectively communicate the value of transportation research by identifying those who ultimately decide upon funding for research, those who advocate for such funding, and those who benefit from transportation research. Only when these key players are identified can researchers begin to understand how to develop ways in which to effectively communicate the need for research. To determine this value of research is to determine the effectiveness, in terms of cost and outcome, of a research effort and to establish the need for and justify the resources invested in research. Determining this value requires examining all costs (i.e., investments) and all benefits (i.e., returns), and examining whether or not the perceived outcome was equal to, or greater than, the funds spent on the research itself. To communicate the value of research is to communicate the need for it and to generate awareness and knowledge of the research; to convey the importance of research; and to clearly state its benefits: how it will improve upon what has already been established and develop new processes that can improve quality of life. To gain support, researchers must show, by specific examples, exactly what the benefits of a research effort will be. Many transportation researchers, however, have difficulties communicating the value of research. These difficulties arise from and correspond to low audience awareness. The public is not always conscious of the benefits they receive from transportation research that has already been implemented and, therefore, do not readily consider the benefits of new or future projects. Decision makers, or those who decide whether or not to provide funding for a project, do not necessarily understand just how valuable transportation research can be, and researchers simply are not always equipped with the skills to actively promote their cause. Purpose and Scope To accurately communicate value is to take an idea, such as “transportation research,” which can be somewhat abstract and vague in nature, and make it concrete in the minds of the audience (i.e., decision makers, the public, and other stakeholders). For example, a research effort that studies current roadways can determine the need for new roads, lead to the building of such roads, and can ultimately ease traffic congestion. Connecting the need for research to an end product, in a way in which the audience will clearly and immediately see the benefits, will result in support of the research effort. To better communicate the value of research, researchers must first define the end result, or product, and translate the initial results into tangible, new insights or understandings, materials, methods, and technology. Researchers will also need to define the audience, or those who will benefit from the research product, whether they be transportation departments that will put a plan into action or a product into play, or the general public who uses the newly implemented products. And finally, researchers must measure how the value of their research is perceived, whether it be quantitatively (cost) or qualitatively (e.g., economic, social, or environmental gain), realizing that perceptions can run the gamut. Finding common ground, therefore, becomes increasingly more important as more groups of people become interested and involved in a research project because different audiences will have varying desired outcomes. For example, if the product of a research project is going to be new roads, the

NCHRP 20-78: Final Report Page 3 general public might prefer to commute less and might provide support; Chambers of Commerce might be pleased with providing businesses the opportunity to expand, therefore reaching a wider consumer base; but elected officials might not want to risk providing funds that might be put to better use. Continuing and developing research through investment requires the measurement of the return on an investment (ROI). Our ROI analysis was based on interviews with key stakeholders, beneficiaries of research, decision makers, and those who generate influence. We also identified several examples of transportation research, or case studies, and for each analyzed the communication flow and content, the communication practices, the participants’ understanding of their roles as communicators, the patterns of response to the communication strategy, and the effectiveness of communication in securing research support. In doing so, we found that some organizations measure the success of their communication by the numbers and types of media calls received, the number of hits on a Website, an increase or decrease in the number and amounts of donations, and by receiving long-term funding through federal legislation. Current Context While investments in the transportation system roughly equal $1.3 trillion annually, research is only a small part of federal and state transportation budgets, despite the fact that the return on investment can substantially increase the quality of life. As such, transportation researchers must be innovative as they participate in the ever-important national transportation debate. Promoting investment in transportation research requires examining policy advocacy and diffusing information with the intention to influence legislation and the passing of certain laws by targeting policymakers. We were interested in the advocacy communication efforts that influenced the funding of research programs in Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) and the level of funding that the programs received. We also focused on the advocacy communications efforts that influenced the contents and funding levels associated with Title V of the legislation—Transportation Research. How are we going to obtain federal funds for future transportation systems? The current Highway Trust Fund surplus balance will eventually be depleted, and Congress will be forced to increase taxes or find alternatives. Making Congressional members care equally about transportation research as they do about their multitude of priorities requires a champion who will advocate for research funding at the right time (i.e., as early in the process as possible and while the issue still has momentum), in the right place (e.g., Congressional hearings, Conference Committees), to the right people (i.e., staffers), and with the most effective, consistent, and lucid communication style. Advocates need to consider the timing of research, their audience, the inspiration for the research, the succinct presentation of their research, and reaching the widest possible base. Additionally, clearly correlating the investment in research to its results, i.e., the reasons that it was useful to the public, is key, and advocates should concentrate on performance measures that have proven the savings of time, lives, and money; these messages will leave an impression with legislators, agencies, and the public and will help to continue the discussion. Research Approach The goal of this research project was to determine the most effective ways of communicating the value of research by (1) ensuring that research beneficiaries recognize the benefits that they do receive and how they improve their lives and (2) ensuring that researchers understand the best ways

NCHRP 20-78: Final Report Page 4 to communicate that value to those who will be affected by their research. To do this, we designed a survey that examined different variables: We first had to identify the audiences of transportation research communication, the objective of Task 1. To do this we conducted outreach within the transportation research community by means of interviews with key stakeholders, such as elected officials, decision makers, policy makers, State DOTs, and other pertinent agencies. To reach the widest audience possible for this task, we used snowball sampling, which relies on referrals from initial subjects to generate additional subjects. From these people, we were able to determine the various audiences, how to position the transportation research product, and how to communicate messages to these audiences. Our research team also conducted interviews during professional meetings and conferences such as the TRB Annual Conference. Our approach to the research included conducting case studies of a wide range of successful transportation research project investment decisions to examine the communication practices leading to funding and implementation. The goal was to determine what the current communication practices were, which were successful and which were not, and most importantly why some practices succeeded and others failed. We had to systematically question—what makes a communication practice successful? And do the attributes assigned to audiences and communication modalities noted within the first two tasks play a significant role in that success? Case study selection, the objective of Task 3, was based on four criteria: a mixture of both “hard science” and “soft science” research; a variety of organizations performing the research and, ultimately, those with the communication plan (e.g., universities, state DOTs, private sector); a diversity in locations in which the research was being performed; and various types of audiences, or recipients of the communication. Task 4 of the project required examining each case, through interviews, and mapping the communication flow from initiation through implementation of the project, determining the communication practices used, eliciting the participants’ understanding of their roles as communicators, and determining typical responses to the communication strategies on which they relied. This research was designed from the information gathered in Tasks 1–3. The next step in the work plan was to analyze the communication approaches and messaging strategies that were identified in Tasks 1–4 and develop a communication plan that describes the ideas and the tools needed for communicating the value of transportation research. Deeper analysis on communication approaches and messaging strategies focused on four main aspects: the analysis of the socio-political context, or the setting of the research project, focusing on any challenges and how they may have impacted communication; the analysis of the sender, or the organization responsible for designing and implementing a research project and, therefore, the communication plan; the analysis of the receiver, focusing on the beliefs and opinions of the audience and their attitudes and behaviors that can deter or support the success of a research project, and; the analysis of the channels of communication, which provides an overview of the media context and the formal and informal forms of communication that were used to send and receive information and that were used for communication planning. These analyses form the recommendations for communication approaches and messaging strategies that can be used to effectively communicate the value of transportation research. These strategies and best practices were compared, as a result of Task 6, and are presented as recommendations in Chapter 6 of this report. In comparing strategies and best practices, we conducted secondary research using: (1) Internet searches of the Websites of twenty organizations to document the extent to which communicating research transcends non-transportation fields by identifying organizations in those fields and documenting their practices and tools for communicating

NCHRP 20-78: Final Report Page 5 research, and (2) Internet reviews of relevant articles, publications, and other resources related to communication. These searches led to the selection and interview of seven successful organizations with exemplary practices in communicating research to gain deeper understanding of their processes, approaches, and tools on which they rely, and the analysis of the similarities and differences between the Task 5 findings and the practices of the organizations identified in the previous steps. These findings from Task 6 contributed to the preparation of Task 7—an interim report that compiled the recommendations, in the form of guidelines, for best communication approaches to effectively communicate the value of transportation research projects and programs to agenda setters and decision makers. This report focused on theories and concepts of communication planning, but concentrated on the practical applications for specific audiences. These results and finding have been combined into a guidebook that the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), state DOTs, other organizations, and transportation researchers can use to enhance their abilities to communicate the value of transportation research. This guidebook plots a communication strategy from audience identification to proper and effective messaging to implementation. Report Organization This report has been prepared by compiling the technical memos and key findings of each task of the project, as well as the examinations of current communication practices (in the form of seven in-depth case studies). Chapter One discusses the first two tasks, which included identifying the audiences of transportation research communication and interviewing these audiences and provided a framework of research on the audience and communication practices that followed. Chapter Two details the context of the research project in relation to SAFETEA-LU and focuses on obtaining federal funding through communication. Chapter Three examines our methods and criteria for selecting the seven case studies and identifies the case studies using both hard and soft science. Chapter Four details the seven case studies selected and the communication practices used for each, identifying the project, the need for it, the audience, the communicators, the message, and the outcome. Chapter Five analyzes the communication strategies and approaches that were identified in the first four tasks and combines then into an overall communication process and messaging strategy. Chapter Six reviews the best practices of communicating the value of research and compares the different communication styles, channels, content, and audiences of each case study, specifically identifying successful practices, and also lists the organizational Websites we used in our secondary research.