From Research to Real-World Impact: Creating Community-Centered Paths for Sharing Knowledge

Rethinking Dissemination as an Essential Part of Research

The workshop was led by Sarah Gollust, a professor of public health at the University of Minnesota and co-author of the Community-Centered Dissemination Toolkit. Gollust opened the session by inviting participants to reflect on their own experiences with dissemination, noting that research often receives significant investment in design and methodology, while far less time and planning is devoted to ensuring findings actually reach and benefit communities, practitioners, and decision-makers.

Traditional dissemination—such as publishing academic articles, presenting at conferences, or issuing press releases—remains important, Gollust explained. However, these approaches alone rarely lead to meaningful change in policy or practice. Research shows that without intentional planning, it can take years for published findings to be applied outside of academic settings, leaving valuable knowledge underutilized and communities underserved.

Why Community-Centered Dissemination Matters

A central theme of the workshop was the ethical and equity-based imperative to share research findings with those most impacted by the work. Community-centered dissemination emphasizes early and ongoing engagement, bi-directional communication, and tailoring messages to specific audiences in ways that are timely, credible, and accessible.

Participants explored how factors such as relevance, legitimacy, and accessibility shape whether research is used in practice or policy—and how these factors are often within researchers’ control. By engaging communities and stakeholders early, research teams can better understand what information is most useful, how it should be framed, and which formats will resonate.

1. Evaluate impact.
   Finally, participants considered how to assess the effectiveness of their dissemination efforts using practical metrics such as community engagement, media attention, follow-up inquiries, and requests for collaboration.
2. Gather the right team.
   Participants were encouraged to bring together research team members alongside community advisors and partners who can offer insight into dissemination goals, audiences, and strategies. The process was framed as collaborative and iterative, rather than linear.
3. Define dissemination goals.
   A key takeaway was the distinction between research goals and dissemination goals. Attendees clarified what they hoped would change as a result of their research—whether raising awareness, fostering engagement, influencing policy, or supporting action—and who needed to receive the information for that change to occur.
4. Identify audiences, messages, and formats.
   Participants mapped the communities, decision-makers, organizations, and individuals who need access to their findings, considering what each audience already knows, what they care about, and how they are most likely to engage. The workshop highlighted a range of dissemination formats beyond academic publications, including community meetings, policy briefs, targeted social media, op-eds, podcasts, and creative approaches.
5. Identify resources early.
   Effective dissemination requires time, funding, and expertise. Gollust emphasized the importance of budgeting for design, translation, community compensation, and logistical needs—reinforcing that dissemination of work is not an add-on but a core component of responsible research.

What Participants Gained

By the end of the session, attendees walked away with more than new ideas. Many left with draft dissemination plans tailored to their own projects, clear next steps for engaging communities and partners, and tools they could continue refining as their research evolves. The interactive format also created opportunities for cross-campus connection and shared learning among researchers and community collaborators working across disciplines.