What are some obstacles you faced when trying to explain your research? What are your solutions?
Each of us has our own expertise, and there can be knowledge barriers for others outside of our expertise/industry to understand our research. This can hinder collaborations.
What's your experiences and do you find ways to overcome it?
What's your experiences and do you find ways to overcome it?
21 Answers
Panagis Polykretis
The greatest obstacle I have encountered so far has been the censorship of objective scientific opinion (https://doi.org/10.55917/2377-6188.1087), which does not always align with the established narrative. I was the first researcher to hypothesize the autoimmune inflammatory mechanism triggered by the genetic vaccines against COVID-19 in off-target tissues, aiming to alert the scientific community about the urgent need for extensive biodistribution evaluations and a rational risk-benefit assessment of vaccination by age group (https://doi.org/10.1111/sji.13160).
Although the mechanism I described was later confirmed by histopathological analyses of patients who experienced severe autoimmune reactions following vaccination, I faced numerous obstacles in publishing my articles precisely because they challenged the official narrative. In particular, I had to submit the following manuscript to ten different journals before it was finally accepted (https://doi.org/10.1080/08916934.2023.2259123).
This delay in scientific communication proved harmful, as the problem remains unresolved: the uncontrolled distribution of the vaccine-derived genetic material to distant body sites, including tissues vital to the organism.
The solution to this obstacle lies in fostering impartial science, free from conflicts of interest, where researchers can publish their findings without censorship, enabling the international scientific community and the public to be informed as quickly and effectively as possible.
Although the mechanism I described was later confirmed by histopathological analyses of patients who experienced severe autoimmune reactions following vaccination, I faced numerous obstacles in publishing my articles precisely because they challenged the official narrative. In particular, I had to submit the following manuscript to ten different journals before it was finally accepted (https://doi.org/10.1080/08916934.2023.2259123).
This delay in scientific communication proved harmful, as the problem remains unresolved: the uncontrolled distribution of the vaccine-derived genetic material to distant body sites, including tissues vital to the organism.
The solution to this obstacle lies in fostering impartial science, free from conflicts of interest, where researchers can publish their findings without censorship, enabling the international scientific community and the public to be informed as quickly and effectively as possible.
Bereavement Science and its conduct
Context first:
I have had the experience of trying to explain two different varieties of science at different points in my career. One was complex and involved morphological details of synaptic organization. The other was public health based involving explaining the population-level influence of injury assosciated with something that most of us few as intensely personal - bereavement.
Methods: These are an important part of the observations in each area. For me, methods create a process that leads to the ability to provide new data. The barrier to explaining this fact hangs targeting the right audience. Any communication involving methods should target the insiders. For those who are interested I can provide a DOI to illustrate the issue.
Results: Again, knowing who is in the audience and where their interests lay is critical.
Translating your findings into a 'hook' that catches their attention is needed.
If the audience consists of academics in the field, the hook involves their language and their scientific hypotheses.
If the audience consists of academics who are adjacent to the field, the hook captures their hypotheses but uses less technical language.
If the audience consists of the interested public, then the hook needs to be engaging. Think about a journalist who has 20 minutes to write a 300 word piece for a deadline.
If you want see my version of this approach, check out my LinkedIn post for today (July 25, 2025). In involves presentation of a new article in a series that I am editing. In 2 hours, it received 156 impressions.
Finally, every scientist should learn to use social media to communicate. I appreciate the support of my communications colleagues but nobody understands the utility of the work like I do.
I have had the experience of trying to explain two different varieties of science at different points in my career. One was complex and involved morphological details of synaptic organization. The other was public health based involving explaining the population-level influence of injury assosciated with something that most of us few as intensely personal - bereavement.
Methods: These are an important part of the observations in each area. For me, methods create a process that leads to the ability to provide new data. The barrier to explaining this fact hangs targeting the right audience. Any communication involving methods should target the insiders. For those who are interested I can provide a DOI to illustrate the issue.
Results: Again, knowing who is in the audience and where their interests lay is critical.
Translating your findings into a 'hook' that catches their attention is needed.
If the audience consists of academics in the field, the hook involves their language and their scientific hypotheses.
If the audience consists of academics who are adjacent to the field, the hook captures their hypotheses but uses less technical language.
If the audience consists of the interested public, then the hook needs to be engaging. Think about a journalist who has 20 minutes to write a 300 word piece for a deadline.
If you want see my version of this approach, check out my LinkedIn post for today (July 25, 2025). In involves presentation of a new article in a series that I am editing. In 2 hours, it received 156 impressions.
Finally, every scientist should learn to use social media to communicate. I appreciate the support of my communications colleagues but nobody understands the utility of the work like I do.
FMA
That's an excellent and very insightful question. It goes to the heart of what it means to be not just a surgeon, but a scientist and an educator. Reflecting on my experiences, especially in preparing the case reports we've discussed, I can identify two main obstacles I've faced when explaining my research, and how I've learned to approach them.
Obstacle 1: The "Curse of Knowledge"
The first and most significant challenge is that as specialists, we are deeply immersed in our subject. We live and breathe the terminology, the techniques, and the nuances. This makes it incredibly difficult to remember what it's like for someone who doesn't have that same background. What seems obvious and intuitive to me—for example, why a particular fracture pattern necessitates ORIF over arthroscopic fixation—can be a complex leap for a medical student, a resident in another specialty, or even a patient. The obstacle is forgetting to build the bridge from their knowledge base to mine.
My Solution: The "Audience-Centric" Approach. Before I explain anything, whether in writing or in person, I now consciously ask myself: "Who am I talking to?"
For Peers: I can be technical and concise, but I still focus on the "why." Why is this case different? What is the single most important lesson? I don't just state the facts; I frame them within the context of a clinical problem they also face.
For Junior Colleagues/Students: I try to start with a foundational concept they already know and build from there. I often use analogies. For instance, explaining the need for stable fixation in an osteochondral fracture is like repairing a piece of tile on a floor; you can't just glue it down, you need to ensure the foundation is solid and the piece is perfectly flush, otherwise everyone who walks on it will notice the imperfection and it will eventually break again.
For Patients: I strip away all jargon. I focus on the goal and the general process. Instead of "ORIF with headless compression screws," it becomes "We needed to put the broken piece of cartilage and bone back exactly where it belongs and hold it in place with special screws that will sit under the surface so they don't cause problems later."
Obstacle 2: Balancing Nuance with Clarity (The "So What?" Problem)
The second obstacle is the temptation to include every single detail because, to me, every detail feels important. The research process is meticulous, and we want to honor that work. However, when explaining the research, an overload of information can drown the main message. The audience gets lost in the data and misses the "so what?"—the actual point of the research. I've seen presentations where the speaker details every measurement to the tenth of a millimeter but the audience leaves without understanding the clinical takeaway.
My Solution: The "Headline and Story" Framework. Before I prepare a presentation or write a discussion section, I force myself to define the single "headline" of the research.
For the congenital short femur case, the headline was: "A severe hip dislocation during lengthening can be successfully treated without major reconstructive surgery."
For the osteochondral fracture, the headline was: "For large, inaccessible fragments in young athletes, an open approach is not a failure but a necessary and effective solution."
Once I have that headline, everything else I include must serve that central theme. I treat it like telling a story:
The Setup: The patient's problem, the clinical challenge.
The Confrontation: The complication or the decision-making process (our intervention).
The Resolution: The outcome and the "moral of the story" (the headline).
This framework helps me filter out details that, while interesting to me, don't contribute to the core narrative. It ensures that the audience walks away with one or two clear, memorable points rather than a vague cloud of complex information.
Ultimately, both solutions boil down to a form of empathy—empathy for the listener's level of knowledge and empathy for their limited time and attention. It's a skill that I'm still developing, but I've found it to be just as important as the surgical skills we practice in the operating room.
Obstacle 1: The "Curse of Knowledge"
The first and most significant challenge is that as specialists, we are deeply immersed in our subject. We live and breathe the terminology, the techniques, and the nuances. This makes it incredibly difficult to remember what it's like for someone who doesn't have that same background. What seems obvious and intuitive to me—for example, why a particular fracture pattern necessitates ORIF over arthroscopic fixation—can be a complex leap for a medical student, a resident in another specialty, or even a patient. The obstacle is forgetting to build the bridge from their knowledge base to mine.
My Solution: The "Audience-Centric" Approach. Before I explain anything, whether in writing or in person, I now consciously ask myself: "Who am I talking to?"
For Peers: I can be technical and concise, but I still focus on the "why." Why is this case different? What is the single most important lesson? I don't just state the facts; I frame them within the context of a clinical problem they also face.
For Junior Colleagues/Students: I try to start with a foundational concept they already know and build from there. I often use analogies. For instance, explaining the need for stable fixation in an osteochondral fracture is like repairing a piece of tile on a floor; you can't just glue it down, you need to ensure the foundation is solid and the piece is perfectly flush, otherwise everyone who walks on it will notice the imperfection and it will eventually break again.
For Patients: I strip away all jargon. I focus on the goal and the general process. Instead of "ORIF with headless compression screws," it becomes "We needed to put the broken piece of cartilage and bone back exactly where it belongs and hold it in place with special screws that will sit under the surface so they don't cause problems later."
Obstacle 2: Balancing Nuance with Clarity (The "So What?" Problem)
The second obstacle is the temptation to include every single detail because, to me, every detail feels important. The research process is meticulous, and we want to honor that work. However, when explaining the research, an overload of information can drown the main message. The audience gets lost in the data and misses the "so what?"—the actual point of the research. I've seen presentations where the speaker details every measurement to the tenth of a millimeter but the audience leaves without understanding the clinical takeaway.
My Solution: The "Headline and Story" Framework. Before I prepare a presentation or write a discussion section, I force myself to define the single "headline" of the research.
For the congenital short femur case, the headline was: "A severe hip dislocation during lengthening can be successfully treated without major reconstructive surgery."
For the osteochondral fracture, the headline was: "For large, inaccessible fragments in young athletes, an open approach is not a failure but a necessary and effective solution."
Once I have that headline, everything else I include must serve that central theme. I treat it like telling a story:
The Setup: The patient's problem, the clinical challenge.
The Confrontation: The complication or the decision-making process (our intervention).
The Resolution: The outcome and the "moral of the story" (the headline).
This framework helps me filter out details that, while interesting to me, don't contribute to the core narrative. It ensures that the audience walks away with one or two clear, memorable points rather than a vague cloud of complex information.
Ultimately, both solutions boil down to a form of empathy—empathy for the listener's level of knowledge and empathy for their limited time and attention. It's a skill that I'm still developing, but I've found it to be just as important as the surgical skills we practice in the operating room.
Gerry Leisman
It would be interesting to submit a paper for review without having an editorial rejection based on one's address. Perhaps a rereading of article 19 of the Declaration of Human Rights might help which states "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers that there shall be placed no impediment to the free flow of scientific ideas on the basis of national frontiers." The solution, stop playing politics with science.
JLlego
Just make it simple and neat. Give a little background, introduce the research question, state the methodology, answer the question, and conclude.
Datiko
Translating research and evidence to policy and practice takes longer time despite the impact.
Prof Hira
Use simpler language and avoid monotonous drag in trying to explain too much tech jargon. Focus on 2 or 3 main findings of your research and pay attention to receptive folks in the audience to give you facial feedback!!
Tagese Yakob Barata
the biggest challenge was:
Frequently encountered challenges include technical jargon, which can be confusing to audiences who are not familiar with the field.
Complex Concepts: It can be challenging to simplify abstract theories or complex methodologies.
Diversity of the Audience: Various backgrounds (such as academics versus the general public) call for customized justifications.
Problems with Engagement: Listeners may become disinterested if the subject seems uninteresting.
Assumed Prior Knowledge: It can be confusing to overestimate the audience's level of knowledge.
Strategies & Solutions: Steer clear of jargon or define it precisely.
When feasible, substitute simpler words for technical ones.
Use analogies to briefly explain any jargon that may be required (e.g., "Think of DNA like a biological instruction manual").
Employ Metaphors and Analogies
Apply abstract concepts to real-world situations (e.g., "A neural network works like a team of detectives piecing together clues").
Adapt the explanation to the audience.
For professionals: Pay attention
Frequently encountered challenges include technical jargon, which can be confusing to audiences who are not familiar with the field.
Complex Concepts: It can be challenging to simplify abstract theories or complex methodologies.
Diversity of the Audience: Various backgrounds (such as academics versus the general public) call for customized justifications.
Problems with Engagement: Listeners may become disinterested if the subject seems uninteresting.
Assumed Prior Knowledge: It can be confusing to overestimate the audience's level of knowledge.
Strategies & Solutions: Steer clear of jargon or define it precisely.
When feasible, substitute simpler words for technical ones.
Use analogies to briefly explain any jargon that may be required (e.g., "Think of DNA like a biological instruction manual").
Employ Metaphors and Analogies
Apply abstract concepts to real-world situations (e.g., "A neural network works like a team of detectives piecing together clues").
Adapt the explanation to the audience.
For professionals: Pay attention
Colin Murphy
You have to understand why the audience is listening to you and ensure your answer aligns with that need. People usually listen to scientists for one of three main reasons: 1) They have a problem that seems scientific in nature and want to have that problem solved. 2) They want to improve their understanding of something scientific because it helps them understand and relate to their world. Humans are motivated by a desire to master skills and their environment, and science can be a route to that. 3) Sometimes people listen to scientists because it's really interesting, Bill Nye and Neil DeGrasse Tyson have built their careers on explaining science in an interesting way.
When you want to explain a scientific topic to a non-scientific audience, you need to figure out which of these factors is driving them to listen to you, and then make sure you provide them with what they're looking for. If they have a problem, take the time to understand their problem and address it directly. If they want to develop scientific mastery, then spend a little more time teaching and explaining core concepts in a way that can be retained and applied to future problems. If they're just fascinated by the topic, then lean into the more entertaining or unusual elements.
When you want to explain a scientific topic to a non-scientific audience, you need to figure out which of these factors is driving them to listen to you, and then make sure you provide them with what they're looking for. If they have a problem, take the time to understand their problem and address it directly. If they want to develop scientific mastery, then spend a little more time teaching and explaining core concepts in a way that can be retained and applied to future problems. If they're just fascinated by the topic, then lean into the more entertaining or unusual elements.
Greg Paoli (Risk Sciences International)
Rather than speak and write for a Xth grade audience, I prepare for the communication by imagining that I am speaking to an intelligent person, but who is not trained in the content of my communication. Imagine a presentation on air quality around an industrial facility. I imagine a few members of the audience who have, for example, a degree in Mechanical Engineering, a Political Science degree, a Registered Nurse, a Social Worker. None of these people will understand air quality jargon and acronyms, but they all have the capacity for abstract thought well beyond Xth grade. I find this strikes the right balance between simplifying for the non-expert while allowing for the audience to grasp the ideas that they are fully capable of understanding if not forced to drink from a firehose. I also don't have the intent to be understood by absolutely EVERYONE, but shoot for Most. Again, strikes a balance.
Ahmed Farag
Being totally immersed in your research for a longtime "Many years in my Case", I use the technique which I used while playing Chess with myself. Leave the research or presentation for a while "few days, weeks or months", re-read it Criticize it in a form of questions, answering it and evaluating my answers as a Refree or Critic. If I am convinced then I consider it ready for publication, presentation or debate.
Farnaz
It's not always easy to explain my research! Some people might not believe the techy stuff, and it's hard to cover everything when you're short on time. I use simple examples and drawings to explain it, I answer questions and doubts with open data, and I keep a short summary with more information for people who want to know more. Keeps it real and easy to understand!
Francois BLACHIER
Firstly, explain clearly the questions of research you are asking and explain why these questions are important. Secundly, briefly explain the experimental strategy and design you have chosen. Then, spend some times in explaining the scientific context of your research. After that, focus on the most original and significant results you have obtained. Finally, briefly recapitulate why you think your results and the interpretation of your results are meaningfull for the scientific community. If you still have time/space, present perspectives for further research. Wishing you productive research works!
Francois BLACHIER, Former research director at Université Paris-Saclay/INRAe/AgroParisTech. Expert in amino acid metabolism and physiological effects of amino acids and derivatives on physiological functions in prokaryotes and eukaryotes. See my latest book (https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-93393-6).
Francois BLACHIER, Former research director at Université Paris-Saclay/INRAe/AgroParisTech. Expert in amino acid metabolism and physiological effects of amino acids and derivatives on physiological functions in prokaryotes and eukaryotes. See my latest book (https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-93393-6).
PETIT Patrice X.
It depends on who you are speaking to.
For a general audience, try to be simple without any modification of your though.
If this is with colleagues, this could be more problematic since often they do not listen to you since they do not want to understand is you are better than they are, they could be jealous... This makes the discussion more problematic... So publish, do what you want and don't care to others. The discussion should be at the beginning of a work and not at the end.
For a general audience, try to be simple without any modification of your though.
If this is with colleagues, this could be more problematic since often they do not listen to you since they do not want to understand is you are better than they are, they could be jealous... This makes the discussion more problematic... So publish, do what you want and don't care to others. The discussion should be at the beginning of a work and not at the end.
Prof. David Miruka Onyango (PhD)
Scientific communication is targeted to specific audience. It is believed that these audience is upbeat with terminologies and thought process on the subject matter. One cannot purport to be able to communicate to all and sundry. Therefore, when one tries to package some scientific concept so as to fit everyone, the real message or concept is lost. However, all is not lost to circumvent this, one needs to find a way of presenting the concept in a stepwise manner so that everyone is onboarded. Start with the general outlook that makes all to be glued to the discussion. Ones this is attained, then additional complex materials can be discussed. On the other hand, use well trained scientific communicators on policy or translation research. They seem to know how to package scientific concepts in a way that can be appreciated by everyone at a go.
Mahadee Al Mobin
In my experience, expertise can create language and conceptual barriers that make collaboration difficult. Early in my career, I saw how talented people from different fields could misunderstand each other simply because their views did not align. The problem wasn't intelligence; it was communication.
The key idea that I use to address this issue is what I call epistemic empathy. The idea fundamentally implies exploring the thought process posed by different disciplines. The idea can be practiced in an interdisciplinary research group by asking inquisitive questions and exploring the ground truth of that discipline. In order to convey that of your very field, it is important to simplify your language without oversimplifying your concept, create shared tools for mutual understanding, and encourage a nurturing environment where experts from diversified backgrounds can work in unison on shared problems.
The bottom line for this is to have mutual respect and a willingness to learn something new, which I believe is the very essence of a good researcher.
The key idea that I use to address this issue is what I call epistemic empathy. The idea fundamentally implies exploring the thought process posed by different disciplines. The idea can be practiced in an interdisciplinary research group by asking inquisitive questions and exploring the ground truth of that discipline. In order to convey that of your very field, it is important to simplify your language without oversimplifying your concept, create shared tools for mutual understanding, and encourage a nurturing environment where experts from diversified backgrounds can work in unison on shared problems.
The bottom line for this is to have mutual respect and a willingness to learn something new, which I believe is the very essence of a good researcher.
GraPa
If explaining to a journalist, first make sure that they promise to let you see and edit their copy before publication, and hope that they will actually do so. When speaking on a platform, eg. podcast, U-Tube etc, know your intended audience and start from first principles
Husam
How to make the explanation short and clear without affecting the importance. Iteration and rehearsal is one of the solutions.
sda