You've spent years on your research. You believe it matters. But when you try to share it—whether in a journal article, a conference talk, or a classroom conversation—something feels off. The tone gets policed. The message gets diluted. And you're left wondering: Am I supposed to care less about people to get people to care more about my work?

This episode tackles that exact tension. Dr. Adri Corrales joins me to explore how equity-centered researchers can frame their work for maximum societal impact while staying true to their values. We dig into real classroom experiences, the psychology behind audience reception, and the tricky balance between effective messaging and authentic scholarship.

The Challenge: Framing Without Compromising

Here's the problem: Research on framing suggests that empathy-based messaging—the kind that says "these students deserve better"—can actually reduce support for reform. Meanwhile, interdependence framing—which emphasizes mutual benefit and systemic connection—tends to increase buy-in.

But interdependence can feel uncomfortably close to interest convergence: the idea that change only happens when it benefits those in power. And for equity researchers, that's a hard pill to swallow. Should we really frame our work around "what's in it for the majority" when the whole point is to challenge systems that marginalize?

This tension shows up everywhere:

  • In peer review, where editors ask you to soften language about racial marginalization
  • In conference talks, where audience members question whether equity work threatens their "power" in the classroom
  • In academic publishing, where the metrics of success (citations, journal prestige) don't align with practitioners' needs

What We Explored

Adri and I walked through several framing strategies and their trade-offs:

1. Empathy Framing

The approach: "Our students deserve better. Here's how we can serve them."

The challenge: Research suggests this can backfire, triggering defensiveness in audiences who feel implicitly accused of not caring enough.

The reality: Empathy is what drives many of us into this work. Asking researchers to abandon it entirely feels like asking them to leave their purpose.

2. Interdependence Framing

The approach: "When education is more equitable, everyone benefits—students, institutions, and society."

The challenge: This can slide into interest convergence, where reform only happens when it serves those already in power.

The reality: It may be more effective at gaining institutional buy-in, but it risks centering the wrong stakeholders.

3. Practical Framing

The approach: "Here's what you can do in your classroom right now, with the limited time you have."

The challenge: It requires distilling complex research into actionable steps, which academic publishing often does not reward.

The reality: This is what educators need—but it's not what journals prioritize.

A Framework for Thinking About Framing

Based on our conversation, here are the key questions to ask when framing your research:

  1. Who is your audience? Researchers? Practitioners? Policy makers? Each group needs a different framing.
  2. What is their problem state? What challenge are they trying to solve, and how does your work help them solve it?
  3. What are your values? How much are you willing to compromise your message to fit within existing systems?
  4. What does success look like? Are they citations? Is it classroom implementation? Is it a policy change? Your definition of success should shape your framing strategy.

The Tension Between Publishing and Impact

One of the most honest parts of our conversation was acknowledging that academic publishing may not be the best vehicle for practitioner impact. Here's why:

  • Articles are behind paywalls
  • They're written in jargon that takes cognitive energy to decode
  • They prioritize methodological rigor over practical application
  • Success is measured by citations from other researchers, not by classroom implementation

Meanwhile, the content that does reach educators—such as infographics, videos, blog posts, and podcasts—doesn't count as "real scholarship" in tenure and promotion reviews.

We are left with a system where equity researchers are incentivized to write for each other, rather than for the people who could actually benefit from the work.

Key Takeaways

Framing Isn't Neutral

How you frame your work reflects your values, your audience, and your goals. There's no "objective" framing—only strategic choices about what to emphasize and what to leave implicit.

Different Audiences Need Different Frames

What works for a grant proposal may not work for a conference talk. What resonates with researchers may alienate practitioners. You need multiple versions of your message, each tailored to its context.

Academic Publishing Limits Impact

If your goal is to change classroom practice, a peer-reviewed journal article may not be the best tool. Consider supplementing (or even replacing) traditional publishing with blogs, toolkits, workshops, and social media.

Empathy Still Matters

Even if empathy-based framing doesn't always win institutional buy-in, it's still the reason many of us do this work. Don't let the pressure to be "effective" strip your work of its humanity.

Self-Assessment: How Do You Frame Your Work?

Take a moment to reflect on your own research communication:

  • When you describe your work, do you lead with problems or solutions?
  • Do you frame your findings in terms of what people deserve or what people gain?
  • Are you writing for researchers, practitioners, or policy makers? How does your framing shift depending on the audience?
  • What would it look like to share your work outside of academic journals? What's stopping you?

Final Thoughts

Framing is hard because it forces you to make trade-offs between authenticity and effectiveness, between serving your values and serving your audience.

There's no perfect answer. But there are strategic choices you can make—about where you publish, how you write, and who you prioritize.

The most important thing? Be intentional. Know why you're framing your work the way you are. And when the system asks you to water down your message, decide for yourself how much you're willing to compromise.

Resources

Framing Toolkit: Get a 1-page worksheet, question prompts, and real examples to help you frame your research for impact. Download the toolkit here.

TEDx Talk by Dr. Nathaniel Kendall-Taylor: Learn more about framing research on interdependence. Watch here.

Framing Research Study: Read the study defining interdependence in public policy. Access the paper here.

Thank You

A huge thank you to Dr. Adri Corrales for this thought-provoking conversation about navigating the complexities of framing equity-centered research. Your insights challenge us to think critically about how we communicate our work—and who we're really writing for.

And thank you to our readers who are doing the hard work of making science more equitable, one study, one classroom, one conversation at a time.

Let's collaborate

Schedule a meeting with our founder, Dr. Rosa, to explore how we can help broaden your impact.

Learn More

Want to talk about how to measure, communicate, or scale your research's societal impact? Schedule a consultation with Dr. Rosa to explore how Science with Impact can support your work.

🧪
Science with Impact provides:
1. Evidence-based impact measurement and communication.
2. Lasting national and local partnerships with STEM organizations.
3. Impact-centered professional development for students.