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 97 CHAPTER 6: REVIEW OF BEST PRACTICES FROM OTHER FIELDS AND RESULTS OF COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH Introduction Task 5 resulted in an understanding of the communications process and set of recommendations for communication approaches and strategies. It is, however, important to compare and contrast this set of recommendations derived from practice within the transportation research field with best practices from other fields and results of communication research. This objective was accomplished through three iterative steps:  Conduct secondary research using Internet searches 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 research.  Interview organizations with exemplary practices in communicating research to gain deeper understanding of their processes, approaches, and tools they rely on.  Analyze the similarities and differences between the Task 5 findings and the practices of the organizations identified in the previous steps. The product of this task is an assessment of the ways in which the transportation research community markets its research and products in contrast with how people in other fields market similar ideas and products. For this task, we examined the following examples of “best practice” possibilities.  Fundraising Community. Over the past decade, the concept of ‘moves management’ has gained ascendancy in fundraising and philanthropic circles. The moves management process entails taking a series of steps (moves) with identified prospects. The idea is moving them from attention, to interest, to desire, and back to attention. Essentially, a unique strategy is developed for each prospect. Then, planning contact, implementing moves, and evaluating the success of each move track the progress of the relationship. It's a constantly changing strategy that is refined as the strategy is played out.  Knowledge Management. Most organizations are discovering that you cannot manage knowledge because it is too slippery and it changes too quickly. Knowledge management experts have rediscovered the power of “stories” in communicating the value of data. Stories can communicate a large volume of emotional content in a short time to quickly resonate with the target audience.  Social Psychology. According to “The Tipping Point,” ideas, products, messages, and behaviors spread just like viruses.30 o Mavens – These individuals are idea specialists. They are human databanks who are obsessive about details and sharing them with others. Similar to medical epidemics, a handful of special people play an important role in starting idea epidemics. They alter the “message” in such a way that extraneous details are dropped and others are exaggerated so that the message itself comes to acquire deeper meaning. From this notion, a typology of communicators can be developed: o Connectors – Connectors are people specialists. They know many people from every possible sub-culture and niche. They have an extraordinary knack for 3Gladwell, Malcolm. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Boston: Little Brown & Company, 2000.

NCHRP 20-78: Final Report Page 98 making friends and acquaintances out of everyone from farmers in a village in Ethiopia to vice presidents of international banks. They act as social glue by spreading ideas around. o Salespeople – These individuals have the skills to persuade us when we are unconvinced by what we are hearing. They are masters of the art of emotional expression and draw people into their own conversational rhythms on a completely sub-conscious level. The above three practices indicate that “out of the norm” best practices exist that can be used to better communicate the value of research in transportation. The research team conducted an extensive and diverse literature search to find the effective “nuggets” of wisdom from other fields. The best practices selected for comparison were culled against a set of criteria that included evaluative information and research on their effectiveness. The end result gave way to revisions, as well as enhancements, to the recommendations for communication approaches and messaging strategies that were identified in Task 5. This chapter documents our findings in carrying out Task 6. First, we provide an overview of the secondary research review and using a key outcome of Task 5—the Generic Process for Communicating the Value of Research—we synthesized four organizations’ best practices. This is followed by a discussion of the similarities and differences in communication practices discovered during the Task 6 review. We conclude with broad themes that emerged as a result of this review. Best Practice Review For a focus on best practices, we conducted a review of about twenty organizational Websites of organizations that might communicate about research not related to transportation, and conducted Internet reviews of a number of relevant articles, publications, and other resources related to the topic of communicating research. Based on our Internet review of Websites, we selected seven organizations for an in-depth interview to learn more about their successful research-related communication practices. By identifying these programs as being “successful” we mean their efforts contributed to raising funds for new or future research, gaining buy-in and support from decision makers, turning their research results into policy/action, or deploying their research results in everyday life. These organizations include:  St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital (St. Jude)  Susan G. Komen for the Cure (Komen)  Consultative Group on International Agriculture Resources (CGIAR)  Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (AFWA)  Case Western Reserve University (CWRU)  Federation of Earth Science Information Partners (FESIP)  National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) Interviews were successfully completed with the first four of these organizations listed above. A list of the Websites and resources we reviewed, a summary of organizational interviews, and examples of Websites and communications materials are contained at the end of this chapter.

NCHRP 20-78: Final Report Page 99 The following represents the key observations derived from this secondary research review in comparing differences and similarities between the findings of Task 5 and organizations that have a need to communicate research unrelated to transportation. These findings are organized by the following topics:  Research Communication Processes  Communication Channels  Communication Styles  Target Audiences Research Communications Processes A major observation resulting from the secondary research review is that organizations that communicate research in non-transportation issues follow similar tenets in carrying out their communications efforts, many of them through very formal programs but some more informal. Their processes are very similar to the generic process outlined in Chapter 5. To illustrate this, Table 6-1 presents a synthesis of the communication processes followed by the four organizations we interviewed.

NCHRP 20-78: Final Report Page 100 Table 6-1: Organizations’ Communications Processes Organization Context Strategy Content Channels/Style St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital Issue to sell: The value of research to donors and potential donors and end-users of the research. St. Jude’s basic and clinical research advances treatment and prevention of catastrophic diseases in children and to improve their survival rate.  Team scientific editors and designers with researchers to produce effective publications and manuscripts.  Create portals for sharing advancements with researchers worldwide.  Develop partnerships with medical institutions and fund- raising organizations to recruit support for key programs.  Use telecommunications to link programs and professionals to learn from and assist each other.  Build relationships with media to advance stories and news on fundraising events and programs that benefit the hospital.  Use the St. Jude Brand.  Provide simple, easy to digest facts and updates on research and identify the principal investigator.  Demonstrate research saves lives, provides better or new treatments.  Frequent updates focusing on research results and direct impacts.  Website :Portals such as Cure4Kids portal for information transfer between clinicians and scientists.  Multimedia: Engaging interactive presentations, videos and media interviews available from Internet Media Center.  Print: Annual research report summarizing research progress, advances and publications. Susan G. Komen for the Cure (Komen) Issue to sell: The value of the research they fund and research they support to advance the use of proven new methods, drugs and preventative practices in the interest of saving lives. Komen commissions and funds research to find improved methods for breast cancer detection, develop new drugs and treatment, and promotes measures to help people reduce their risk of having breast cancer. Since 1982, Komen has invested nearly $1 billion in its efforts to cure breast cancer and save lives.  Build a local Affiliate Network to keep the issue of finding a cure in the public eye.  Nurture a trusting relationship with audience as a reliable source of information.  Maintain a team of communications specialists to create and distribute materials.  Have ready access to the world’s leading researchers and clinicians.  Track indicators of communications success.  Build upon the Komen brand.  Demonstrate success in terms of number of lives saved.  Link research to facts: better treatments, improved health practices and reductions in breast cancer occurrence.  Personal contact: National Grassroots affiliates.  Personal contact: Champions for the Cure.  Internet: Website regarding grants. Research.  Print: Localize text when possible (carry messages to the grassroots level) and use real- world examples.  Media: Website media center.  Brand: Pink Ribbon focus.

NCHRP 20-78: Final Report Page 101 Organization Context Strategy Content Channels/Style Consultative Group on International Agriculture Resources (CGIAR) Issue to sell: The value of high- quality science to ensure sustainable agricultural growth around the world. CGIAR’s research benefits the poor through stronger food security, better human nutrition and health, higher incomes and improved management of natural resources. Without CGIAR’s researchers, world production of food would have been 4-5 percent lower in developing countries and more than 13-15 million children would have suffered from hunger and malnutrition.  Focus on developing a good relationship with the Media to capture the attention of officials.  Use written materials as ‘leave behinds” with officials to reinforce face-to-face communications.  Share communication practices, techniques, and resources to help partners/CGIAR Centers further the impact of research.  Maintain close ties with policy makers, elected or appointed officials.  Leverage partners in disseminating information.  Give meaning to results – emphasize impact of results in terms of reducing poverty and hunger and protecting the environment.  Be clear in what is being communicated and use concrete and compelling messages.  CGIAR centers focus on research issues of local interest. .  Personal contact: CGIAR liaison with key officials and policy makers.  Media: Local radio interviews and public media discussions.  Internet: Website in multiple languages and many interactive functions; Research & Impact as a key item; Extensive library and database of publications.  Multi-media: Video and PSAs.  Print: Newsletters on each research issues. Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) Issue to sell: The value of conservation and stewardship practices to protect natural resources. Create a unified voice to ensure that adequate funding and policies are in place for conservation of all species. Expanded and emerging fish and wildlife conservation programs and activities will protect our nation’s natural resources.  Focus on current issues of most importance to the public.  Build partnerships with corporations, federal and state agencies, fish and wildlife organizations and dedicated individuals.  Involve the AFWA communication specialist and other staff in communicating research and issues.  Facilitate the transfer of reliable and relevant research to where it is needed most.  Link research with the direct benefits derived in terms of improving or protecting fish and wildlife habitat and health.  Present time-relevant information.  Target information to meet the audience needs and interests.  Personal contact: Science and Research Liaison, particularly for congress and their staff.  Personal contact: Partnership programs such as Teaming with Wildlife Coalition  Print: Fact Sheets  Print: creative, colorful and graphic heavy; brochures, toolkits  Internet: Website to advance research and information transfer, Image gallery, Conservation News blog

NCHRP 20-78: Final Report Page 102 The majority of these organizations place an importance on all levels of the communications process with an emphasis on the bottom two layers (Channels and Style). It is important to recognize these organizations typically have substantial resources (e.g., staffing, printing and distribution budgets) dedicated to communications and public relations. Communication Channels As shown in Table 6-2, organizations that are successful in communicating their research do not rely on a single communication channel or approach. Without exception, these organizations deliberately use multiple channels and tools to communicate about and involve audiences in their research. Table 6-2: Research Communications Channels Used by Other Organizations Channel St. Jude Komen CWRU CGIAR FESIP NASA AFWA Champions/Ally Program        Sponsorships/partners        Publish in Journals, Trade        Extended Networking        Advocacy Groups        “Work shopping,” Conferences, Meetings        Speakers Program        Website        Media Center        Video/PSA        Radio Interviews/PSA        Print Media        Awards for service/contributions        Key: Tool use observed during secondary reviews/interviews = Primary tool (heavily relied upon) = Secondary tool (occasionally used) = Little or no evidence found of use Of the many channels cited above, several stand out:  Champions/Ally Programs. Several of the organizations cited above build networks of trusted and reliable advocates, champions, and allies for spreading information and extending their reach to target audiences. Building and establishing credibility and trust is a critical element of audience receptivity to communications about research. Therefore, building networks with individuals and organizations that financially support or use the research results or otherwise benefit from them (e.g., advocates, patients, other researchers) is a critical communication channel.  Research champions/advocates can be important conduits of information transfer and message delivery. In many cases research advocates/champions can significantly influence decision makers. Several of the organizations not only build these networks, but also frequently include their networks in the communications planning process or provide them

NCHRP 20-78: Final Report Page 103 with tools and formalized training and resources to facilitate their communications. This was a distinguishing feature of the organizations in our Task 6 (compared to the Task 5 findings). For instance, Komen provides their Champions for the Cure with tool kits for grassroots communications, as does the W. K. Kellogg Foundation. Both organizations encourage their champions to use these tools so their mutual communications are aligned. This way, the champions’ communications are more effective in influencing the audiences they target.  Websites. Organizations have embraced the proliferation of the Internet; it has created a host of opportunities for furthering communications to maximize accessibility and transfer of information and thereby increasing awareness and interest in the organizations’ research. Generally, most communication products distributed by the organizations also were available on the organization Website. Highlights of the use of the Internet as a primary channel for communicating research include: o Organizations use the Internet heavily to communicate with all audiences, and interviewees attributed a lot of their communication success to the ability of information to be accessed 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Some organizations, such as the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, use the Internet as its primary means of communication with its members and key audiences. o Organizations with other group affiliations abundantly share information and provide links and information on each other’s Websites. These other organizations generally have similar research goals, or would somehow benefit from the research conducted. The CGIAR offers a good example of information sharing through the Internet. With members located worldwide, the Internet presents a cost-effective and viable information transfer channel. o Some Websites go beyond simply providing media releases on the site, and instead, offer a full media center containing fact sheets, appropriate contacts, print media releases, and audio or video clips for broadcast media. Examples of Website media centers are included at the end of this chapter for the Susan G. Komen, St. Jude’s, and the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA). The value of Websites as dissemination venue for communicating research is dependent upon maintaining the site with up-to-date information and technology. Doing so requires an organization’s commitment of staff and budget to cover necessary technology enhancements over time. Communication Styles Most of the organizations and many of the resources we reviewed recognize the value of style (e.g., delivering information in formats that are clear, concise and tailored to the audience) in their research communications. Resources contain chapters devoted to providing practical guidance on style, and organizations include style in their communications plans. So, when it comes to communication styles, it is reasonable to assume that there are many similarities between research programs in terms of communications styles. But, often quite different approaches to style are used by many of the organizations in our review than those presented in our Task 5 findings. Two examples follow.  Use of Branding. Many organizations with responsibilities to communicate research set clear guidelines on the style and standard of communications, including the insistence of consistent branding. In fact, many government agencies and major corporations and foundations have strict policies on the dissemination of research products and standards to ensure consistency in style, layout and presentation of research projects. Our review indicates that the use of a ‘brand’ or image of the research project or sponsor is a growing practice in communicating research. In these instances, branding goes beyond

NCHRP 20-78: Final Report Page 104 including using a particular color scheme in materials and an organization’s logo. It can include important graphic images, such as the Komen Foundations “pink ribbon” or the use of iconic symbols such as a photo of or quote by Danny Thomas (St. Jude) on materials. Branding creates an instant connection between the research organization and the audience— bridging the gap between the provider and the receiver. It brings a new layer of credibility and personality to the research product and the institution delivering it. As a result, connecting research with a brand can contribute to the audience’s trust in the information they are receiving.  Use of Communication Professionals. Matching the appropriate style with an intended audience, requires a team effort between researchers and communications professionals. Each of the organizations we highlighted in Table 6-1 and most of the organizations in Table 6-2 team their researchers with communications professionals within their organizations. A number of the organizations’ communications and public relations experts conduct workshops and distribute guides to improve communication skills of researchers. One outcome of the Best Practices workshop conducted by EPA’s Board of Scientific Counselors specifically recommended enhancing the agency’s researchers’ communication skills capacity by including communication professionals on the research team. Target Audiences The broad audiences most frequently referenced by organizations as targets included decision/policy makers (congress, elected officials, agency heads who affect or drive or enact legislation), stakeholders (members, financial contributors, research sponsors, other researchers or potential users of the research), media and the public. While our research revealed a number of approaches for targeting audiences very similar to those identified in Task 5, those approaches that varied are presented in Table 6-3.

NCHRP 20-78: Final Report Page 105 Table 6-3: Audience-specific Communications Audience Content Channels Style Congressional and Elected Officials and their staffs  Be specific about objectives  Pretest the content  Link the results to important, related events for greater relevancy to audience  Explain implications  Have a “news hook” or story element  Lead with and focus on the conclusions  Panel discussions and “work shopping” to get the facts on the table; Invite the policy and decision makers to serve as Chairs.  Personal contact through liaison and offer two-way communications  Use media/journalists to inform  Networking—work every angle  Dialogue  1-2 pages is best, keep less than 20 pages  Use real-life examples  Talk to them as you would a family member, not a dissertation advisor  Present 2-3 points maximum and use bulleted summaries Stakeholders and Decision Makers  Tailor to the values of each  Inform other researchers how this helps them meet their own goals  Panel discussions and “work shopping”  Newsletters  Workshops—with cross- stakeholder participation  Awards and recognition programs  Bulleted summary of research highlights on Website, but offer link to full technical report or article. Media  Highlight the breakthroughs  Weave in real-life examples  Reduce the message into a 30 second sound bite  Address risks and benefits  Post press releases to wire services and on Website.  Personal contact through liaison  Media Centers with stock photos, video clips  Actively market news releases to journalists after distribution to sell the story and offer other leads and photo opportunities  Interactive video and Websites  Computer animations  Video news release formats  Ready to run feature articles Public  Frame within local terms  Website and blogs  Events (roadshows) with giveaways, if applicable  Media Centers with interactive multimedia presentations  Public talk shows (radio)  Champion: Use an outside, credible source (scientist, public advocacy program, federal partner)  FAQs  Website  Interactive videos and Websites  3D animation

NCHRP 20-78: Final Report Page 106 In our review, we noted that some communication products are used for more than one audience, and so the channel for delivering it may differ from audience to audience. For example, an annual report might be mailed to members or donors, while it might be personally delivered to congressional delegates. While some communication products carry the same message, they are always written with the technical level of the audience in mind. For example, an article on research accomplishments would use layman’s terms and focus on results for a media release, while the same research accomplishments are published in member publications using more scientific language and content.

NCHRP 20-78: Final Report Page 107 Best Practices Interview Summaries Susan G. Komen for the Cure Context Komen for the Cure is the world’s largest grassroots network of breast cancer survivors and activists working to save lives, empower people, ensure quality care for all and energize science to find the cures. Since 1982, Komen for the Cure has invested nearly $1 billion in efforts to fulfill its promises, making it the largest source of nonprofit funds dedicated to the fight against breast cancer in the world. Local Affiliates, comprised of volunteers, form the backbone of the organization. A headquarters office serves as the primary link between all affiliates and Komen’s partners. Komen partners with other organizations that are seeking breakthroughs in cancer diagnosis and treatment, such as the American Society of Clinical Oncologists and the American Association of Cancer Research. Komen commissions research, and also helps to fund research conducted by other organizations. Research involves finding improved methods for breast cancer detection, developing new drugs and treatment options, and identifying measures people can take to reduce their risk of having breast cancer. Facts Actors and Audiences The most critical key actors in Komen communications are the more than 100,000 volunteers that make up the local Affiliate Network. These volunteers keep the issue of finding a cure for breast cancer in the public eye. Some volunteers are involved in Komen’s Champion for the Cure, which is a subunit of Komen that works to educate elected officials and Congress about breast cancer research and issues. The general public, breast cancer survivors, patients, physicians, policy makers and donors are the key audiences to whom most Komen communications are directed. Communication Approaches Komen relies on its grassroots advocacy network to disseminate information to all audiences with whom they communicate. This is particularly true for communications with media, the public, and policy makers or a local affiliate level. The headquarters office of Komen for the Cure employs communication specialists who create materials and make them available to local affiliates. The headquarters office also generates some communications from a national perspective. Communication Messages The single, most important message the Komen for the Cure organization works to broadcast about the research they fund or the research they support is that it saves lives. The goal of the organization

NCHRP 20-78: Final Report Page 108 is to cure breast cancer, which means they are working to reduce to zero (0), the number of women who die from breast cancer. Challenges Komen reports the most daunting challenge they have faced with communicating about research and its value is that “a lot of people, including many members of the press, see the word ‘research’ and either think they can’t/won’t understand it or they are afraid to even try. Coupled with this is the fact that Komen funds a lot of ‘basic’ research – inquiries at the cellular level, etc. and it is, at times, difficult to follow and even more difficult to visualize how the research is eventually going to benefit the patient.” To address this challenge, Komen offers consumer-friendly breast health and breast cancer information congruent with eighth- to tenth-grade reading levels. The organization produce reader- friendly research/researcher profile stories for use in newsletters and on Komen’s Web site. Another challenge Komen has faced with communicating about research and its value is the organization’s responsibility to not promote scientific advances that, however promising they might sound to patients, are not yet proven and therefore not yet ready for prime time. “Many reporters and editors, in their zeal to run with a story and to perhaps offer hope and encouragement to their readers, want to publicize advancements before it really makes sense to do so,” reports Komen’s senior communication staff. “Our job, at times, is to put on the brakes and to offer context and perspective about the process involved in bringing scientific advancements from the laboratory bench to the patient bedside. It’s not as quick as some people would believe it to be!” Komen has worked over the years to make sure that reporters and editors know that when they come to Komen, they will get reliable information and access to some of the world’s leading breast cancer researchers and clinicians if they want to go in depth on a particular subject or they need more context. Komen also added a chief scientific advisor, Dr. Eric P. Winer, an internationally known oncologist and educator from Harvard, to head their Scientific Advisory Board, comprised of leading breast cancer researchers and clinicians. This board offers expert comment and perspective on breaking news in the breast cancer arena. Dr. Winer and the Board make sure Komen issues news and updates on research are reliable and evidence-based. Outcomes Komen has several measures for determining the success of their communications, including communications about research and its value. Those include: The numbers and types of media calls they receive. In the last several years, the questions and issues reporters brought to the organization have become more in-depth and sophisticated. Komen feels this demonstrates they have made considerable inroads on reaching members of the media with context and background information on the complexities of breast cancer. The number of ‘hits’ Komen receives on a particular story on its Web site regarding grants and the research, the number of inquiries they receive about their research efforts, and the number and caliber of grant applications it receives – all of which are on the increase – also are indicators of communication success regarding research. Donations to Komen for the Cure continue to increase and the participation in the Komen events, such as the Race for the Cure, continues to be robust, as well. Funding from partner programs is expected to rise by nearly 40 percent this year.

NCHRP 20-78: Final Report Page 109 Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) Context The Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) promotes sound management and conservation, and speaks with a unified voice on important fish and wildlife issues. The association represents all of North America’s fish and wildlife agencies, including the fish and wildlife agencies for all 50 United States. Several federal agencies partner with the AFWA in its efforts to promote sound management and conservation, including the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. AFWA has a Science and Research Program, which is designed to strengthen cooperation between state, federal, private and international agencies and partners. The Science and Research Program seeks to expand and enhance scientific capabilities and services by matching state research needs with the science capabilities of federal agencies. A Science and Research Liaison works closely with a variety of partners to initiate and provide timely, credible, science based information that can be used by resource managers to protect and manage fish, wildlife, and their habitats in the public interest. Science and research topics are defined based on wildlife, fisheries, and aquatic research areas identified by the states, and then developed into initiatives and programs that have benefits relevant to resource managers. Current issues involved in AFWA research include wind power impacts on fish and wildlife, global climate change and hurricane restoration and recovery. Facts Actors and Audiences The AFWA’s members, and the leaders of those organizations (state fish & wildlife agency executives), are key actors in the activities and communications of the organization. The AFWA also had a small staff, which includes a communication specialist, and a legislative director. The AFWA considers its members (including the resource managers who work for the member organizations) to be its primary audience. The U.S. Congress, sportsman’s organizations, conservation groups and the general public are also considered to be key audiences. Communication Approaches Targeting communication materials and messages to specific audiences is common practice for the AFWA. The association creates several materials that are similar (such as newsletters, information kits and fact sheets, but distributes the materials using different methods, depending on the audience. The AFWA believes in being creative with communications, particularly to bring attention to specific elements of fish and wildlife successes. An example of this is the awards they bestow upon congressional representatives, members or individuals.

NCHRP 20-78: Final Report Page 110 Building relationships with key decision makers, such as congressional officials, is considered critical to the AFWA. Regular, personal contact helps create a presence for the association, and has helped AFWA build a reputation among those officials. Developing relationships with congressional staff is considered as important as developing relationships with congressional officials. A network of communicators within the association’s members and partners, and groups or organizations interested in fish and wildlife issues serves as a means to disseminate information And, finding champions who will advocate for the association, its mission, and its research efforts is a part of the AFWA’s communication strategy. Communication Messages The AFWA’s research efforts are one element of the association’s communications. However, messages about research are focused on the benefits derived from that research. This includes the positive impacts research has on fish and wildlife habitat and health. Challenges Information overload on the part of communication recipients is considered one of the challenges to communications of the AFWA. Another challenge is ensuring recipients understand the information given to them, particularly when it involves complex, technical information. This is particularly true for information distributed to congressional officials and staff. The AFWA attempts to balance the amount of information they provide, with the need to create more awareness or knowledge of their activities. The association focuses its communication efforts on issues of current interest, which is largely defined as those issues deemed most critical by the public. To ensure there are no misunderstandings or miscommunications about the information they distribute to congressional and elected officials, the AFWA feels it is imperative to have someone discuss the information with the official’s staff beforehand. Outcomes A key target audience of AFWA is Congress, with the goals of increasing stable, long-term funding through federal legislation and seeking annual congressional appropriations to help finance fish and wildlife conservation programs. In 2000, AFWA efforts included passing of the Wildlife Conservation Restoration and State Wildlife Grants Programs. In April 2006, when a massive cut threatened the State Wildlife Grants Program, the association lead an intensive 5-week campaign of grassroots, leadership and media to help restore Program funding in the Senate.

NCHRP 20-78: Final Report Page 111 Consultative Group on International Agriculture Resources (CGIAR) Context The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) is a strategic partnership of countries, international and regional organizations and private foundations supporting the work of 15 international centers. In collaboration with national agricultural research systems, civil society and the private sector, the CGIAR fosters sustainable agricultural growth through high-quality science aimed at benefiting the poor through stronger food security, better human nutrition and health, higher incomes and improved management of natural resources. According to CGIARS’s Website, the organizations research agenda is “dynamic, flexible, and responsive to emerging development challenges.” Originally focused on increasing crop production for specific critical food crops, CGIARS’ research today incorporates biodiversity and environment research. Facts Actors and Audiences Key actors in research and communications efforts of CGIAR are its member organizations, the leaders of those organizations, and a CGIAR staff based in Washington, D.C. Key audiences include international aid agencies, policy makers (i.e., U.S. Congress and leaders of developing nations), private organizations and foundations, natural resource organizations, and the media (including international media). Communication Approaches CGIAR uses both a centralized system of communications, and local communications at their 15 centers. The centralized system’s foundation is the Internet—to keep members, the media and mainstream interests informed. A more personalized approach is taken to policy makers and elected or appointed officials. The CGIAR staff director and various staff members of CGIAR have direct access to key officials, and make most contacts. The director and staff maintain close ties with key policy makers. CGIAR also leverages its members’ and partners’ communication abilities to disseminate information. For example, local CGIAR centers participate in radio interviews and local media discussions, or a partner organization may produce a video that incorporates video from CGIAR, or research results from CGIAR can be found on links of Websites of CGIAR partners. Communication Messages CGIAR believes communicating the value of the research conducted must include concrete, compelling messages that emphasize the impacts of research conducted. The results of the research must be clear, and communications must link the results to CGIAR’s goals of reducing poverty and hunger, and protecting the environment.

NCHRP 20-78: Final Report Page 112 Challenges The CGIAR generates a lot of information, and recipients often can feel bombarded. This is particularly true for policy maker audiences. The CGIAR judiciously uses personal contacts with policy makers and officials to address this aspect of those communications. Another challenge cited by CGIAR is that written communications often go unread, no matter how they are distributed. To address this challenge, the CGIAR has put more focus on media coverage— and finding ways to tell stories that reinforce the messages they wish to convey. “Decision makers may not read a brochure that we give them, but they do read the Economist, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post or other major newspapers … and they watch CNN and CNBC, and other television news.” Written communications also now serve more as a way to reinforce face-to-face communications between CGIAR staff and their key audiences. Outcomes The CGIAR measures its success at communicating the value of research through increases in donors and donations to its programs. The organization considers its communications to have been “moderately” successful over the past six years, as they have been able to garner new support, and maintain existing support in a “competitive environment.” The amount of media coverage CGIAR has experience is increasing, which is another measure the organization uses to measure its outreach success.

NCHRP 20-78: Final Report Page 113 St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital Context The mission of St. Jude Children's Research Hospital is to advance cures, and means of prevention, for pediatric catastrophic diseases through research and treatment. No child is denied treatment based on race, religion or a family's ability to pay. St. Jude welcomes treating physician referrals of children and adolescents with newly diagnosed untreated or suspected cancer; HIV infections; or certain hematologic, immunologic, or genetic diseases. Since the hospital is a research center, every child accepted is enrolled in a specific study or "protocol." Information gathered from these studies is used in developing better treatments. Research efforts are directed at understanding the molecular, genetic and chemical bases of catastrophic diseases in children, identifying cures for such diseases and promoting their prevention. Research is focused specifically on cancers, acquired and inherited immunodeficiencies, infectious diseases and genetic disorders. The current basic and clinical research at St. Jude includes work in gene therapy, bone marrow transplant, chemotherapy, the biochemistry of normal and cancerous cells, radiation treatment, blood diseases, resistance to therapy, viruses, hereditary diseases, influenza, pediatric AIDS and psychological effects of catastrophic diseases. Founded by the late Danny Thomas, a prominent actor and musician, St. Jude is a private institution funded by donations. The American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities (ALSAC) is the fundraising arm of the St. Jude organization. ALSAC, which was established five years before St. Jude opened, is now the third-largest health care charity in the world. Facts Actors and Audiences Leaders of St. Jude and ALSAC are crucial players in communicating about the research conducted at St. Jude. The hospital and ALSAC also have staff dedicated to communicating within different areas of the organization. (St. Jude has a specialist for handling each of media, fundraising and physician referral communications. Key audiences include patients, their parents, physicians, donors, and the general public. St. Jude is a private, nonprofit organization. It has no political or governmental ties. Communication Approaches Communications at St. Jude are centralized, but compartmentalized. All communications initiate from St. Jude’s main campus in Memphis, Tennessee. However, the hospital, fundraising arm, and physician referral units all have their own communication specialists, who generate communications for their own unit. However, each communication unit incorporates information to demonstrate the value of St. Jude research in nearly every communication product created.

NCHRP 20-78: Final Report Page 114 Communication Messages The value of research is communicated in terms of lives saved, the number of new and improved treatments, Challenges And Outcomes Information about challenges and outcomes was unavailable from St. Jude.

NCHRP 20-78: Final Report Page 115 Bibliography Organizational Websites Government Agencies (US and International)  National Aeronautic and Space Agency  Centers for Disease Control  National Institute of Health  Environmental Protection Agency  World Health Organization  Oregon State Board of Higher Education  Federal Geographic Data Committee (USGS) Advocacy Organizations  St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital  Susan G. Komen for the Cure  Robert Wood Johnson Foundation  W.K. Kellogg Foundation  Richard Roundtree Foundation Research and Social Policy Organizations  Case Western Reserve University  Consultative Group on International Agriculture Resources  Federation of Earth Science Information Partners  National Science Foundation  Population Reference Bureau  Canada Centre for Urban Health Initiatives Trade Associations  Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies  State Educational Technology Directors Association

NCHRP 20-78: Final Report Page 116 Articles Westly, Sidney B. “Communicating Research Results: Tips for Preparing and Making Presentations,” Pacific Symposium for Science and Sustainability and Hawaii Junior Science and Humanities Symposium. June 28, 2002. Http://www.hawaii.edu/acadsci. Exchange, “Communicating Health Research: How should Evidence Affect Policy and Practice?” Findings. Number 5, April 2006. Exchange.org. Ashford, Lori. “Communicating Research to Policymakers,” Moving Beyond Research to Influence Policy Workshop. University of Southampton. January 23-24, 2001. Chunharas, Somsak. Linking Research to Policy and Action. In: Neufeld V, Johnson N, eds. Forging links for health research. Perspectives from the Council on Health Research for Development. Ottawa, IDRC Books. 2001. Tweedie, Jack. “Beyond Basic Training: learning a new Language: Effectively Communicating Early Childhood Research to State Legislators,” The Evaluation Exchange. Volume X. No. 2, summer 2004. Workshops/Conferences/Training Programs State Educational Technology Directors Association, “Showing Evidence of Educational Technology’s Effectiveness,” Leadership Summit's toolkit 2006. setda.org. Fathalla, Mohamed M.F., “A Practical Guide for Health Researchers,” World Health Organization. Cairo. 2004. East-West, “Communicating Population and Health Research to Policymakers,” Summer Seminar on Population, Honolulu, Hawaii, May 30–June 29, 2006. www.eastwest.org. U.S. EPA, “Communicating Research Results: Best Practices Workshop” Proceedings. BOSC Communications Ad Hoc Subcommittee. Washington, D.C., May 15, 2003. Askew, Ian; Matthews, Z., and Partridge, R. “Going Beyond Research: A key Issues Paper Raising Discussion Points Related to Dissemination, Utilisation and Impact of Reproductive and Sexual Health Research.” In Moving Beyond Research to Influence Policy Workshop, Southampton, UK, 23-24 Jan 2001. Southampton, UK, University of Southampton, p. 28. http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/40958/. “Report from Parallel Session: communicating Research.” Global Forum for Health Research, Mumbai, India, September 12-16, 2005. Mumbai. www.globalforumhealth.org. Vincent, Robin. “The Challenge of communicating Health Research: Not Just a Matter of Dissemination.” Global Forum for Health Research, Mumbai, India, September 12-16, 2005. Mumbai. www.globalforumhealth.org.