Why public engagement matters for research funding
Science is getting better at helping researchers find research. But funding also depends on a public that can see what research is for. Making the work discoverable and understandable is part of that job.
People can trust science without feeling connected to it
Researchers now have remarkably powerful ways of searching, summarising and connecting scholarly literature. That's useful. But increasingly sophisticated tools for academics don't, on their own, help people outside research understand what scientists are doing.
of UK adults had at least some interest in science.
felt connected with science and actively sought information about it.
said science was not for them.
Source: UK Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, Public Engagement Survey 2025/26. These are UK survey responses, not a measure of worldwide attitudes.
That is the gap we need to think about. There is considerable interest in science, but most people are not actively looking for academic research. We should not assume that making papers easier to search for researchers will solve that problem.
Access is not the same as understanding, and understanding is not the same as discovery. The public should not have to know what to search for before it can learn what publicly funded research is achieving.
Public money needs public relevance
Research funding decisions take place amid competing priorities. Researchers understand the importance of the work, but politicians, communities and funders have to judge its value alongside countless other demands.
Explaining discoveries clearly does not mean lobbying for a particular grant or exaggerating what a study could deliver. It means helping people understand what the question is, what the evidence shows and why continued investigation may matter.
UKRI encourages researchers to plan public engagement early, identify their audiences and cost activities in proposals where appropriate. Its guidance also stresses interaction and listening, not simply broadcasting information. UKRI’s guidance is explicit on these points.
In the United States, the National Science Foundation evaluates research proposals through both intellectual merit and broader impacts. Those are distinct criteria, and a well-developed communication or public-engagement activity can contribute to a broader-impacts plan when relevant. Read NSF’s merit-review explanation.
What public engagement can and cannot do
Make the value visible
Help people understand outcomes, contribute local knowledge, ask questions and connect with the people doing the research.
Promise a funding decision
Guarantee an award, substitute for rigorous methods or prove societal benefit simply because a post received views.
What good public engagement actually looks like
A three-page technical summary uploaded to a university website may be useful, but it is not necessarily public engagement. Ask who is meant to use it, whether they can understand it and whether anyone helped shape the approach.
Who has a reason to care?
A teacher, patient, resident, practitioner or policymaker needs a different explanation. Choose an audience before choosing a format.
Keep the accuracy
Explain the context, findings and uncertainty. Visualise processes when useful, but do not oversell preliminary results.
Do more than upload
Work with university press offices, community organisations, schools, professional bodies or media that already reach the intended audience.
Invite a response
Q&A sessions, feedback, discussion groups and partnerships can improve both the communication and the research questions.
At National Core Indicators, an animation produced in partnership with SciTube was published to help explain employment data to interested communities and stakeholders. It is one example of putting a visual resource into a context where people may actually use it.
The format does not always need to be animation. For some projects, a local workshop or a trusted patient organisation will be more appropriate than a public video. The audience and intended outcome should decide.
How do you know whether engagement worked?
Reach matters. So does whether people found the explanation useful. But neither automatically proves a change in knowledge, behaviour or policy. Define what success would look like before launching the activity.
| Goal | Possible evidence | Be careful about |
|---|---|---|
| Awareness | Views, visits, event attendance, distribution through partners. | Do not assume everyone reached engaged with the material. |
| Understanding | Short feedback questions, pre/post understanding checks, qualitative comments. | Views and likes do not measure comprehension. |
| Dialogue | Questions raised, participation, partnerships, documented feedback. | Do not call one-way promotion a two-way activity. |
| Use in practice | Teaching adoption, stakeholder use, requests from organisations, policy discussion. | Record what happened and avoid claiming causation without evidence. |
On a phone? Swipe the table sideways to see every column.
For UK researchers, the REF 2029 definition of research impact concerns an effect, change or benefit beyond academia. Creating an output or holding an event is not, by itself, the same as demonstrating impact. See the REF engagement and impact guidance.
Not just “we made a video”
Activity: An accessible animation explaining a study, distributed through a university and a relevant community organisation.
Outputs: Video published, partner newsletter coverage and a public Q&A.
Evidence: Analytics, documented questions and participant feedback showing what people understood or wanted to know more about.
Limitation: These observations may support a narrative of engagement, but they do not automatically demonstrate lasting societal impact.
Three questions for any research project
Audience
Name a concrete group rather than saying “the general public”.
Discovery
Identify the communities, organisations, websites or events where the explanation belongs.
Evaluation
Pick one or two useful measures and leave room for feedback to improve the work.
If animation is useful, SciTube can provide a research-led, researcher-approved production with publication and dissemination. But no single communication output can carry an entire engagement programme.
For practical US grant-planning advice, read our NSF Broader Impacts guide. For the distinction between a publication and a public explanation, see Scholarly Publishing vs Public Science Communication.
Public engagement and research funding FAQs
Can public engagement help secure a research grant?
It can be relevant to a funder’s assessment when the programme considers engagement, dissemination or broader impacts. But a communication activity cannot guarantee funding, and scientific merit remains essential.
Is a plain-language summary enough?
Sometimes a concise, accessible written explanation is appropriate. For genuine public engagement, consider how the intended audience will find it and whether feedback, dialogue or participation is needed.
Do all funders require public engagement?
No. The requirements differ by funder, scheme and discipline. Always read the relevant call and consult your research office.
Can video be included in a grant budget?
Where the scheme permits it, a defined communication activity can be costed in a proposal, subject to funder eligibility and institutional approval.
What is the difference between engagement and impact?
Engagement is an activity or relationship. Impact describes effects or benefits beyond academia; demonstrating it typically requires evidence of what changed.