254 8 Chapter 8 however, a complex, time-consuming step that is hampered by political instability, high turn-over of policy-making staff (6) and perceived cultural differences between researchers and policy-makers (10, 11). Consequently, the traditional, linear approach remains the most common used approach. Pitfalls in knowledge creation Despite the less complex nature of the traditional science push model, in practice, researchers and policy-makers rarely speak the same language. Evidence provided to decision-makers is generally considered to be too complex, too detailed, too technical or lacking in timeliness (6, 12, 13). Aside from these substantive elements, inattentiveness to design and structure of a research report can also trouble the communication from researchers to decision-makers (14). Tailored communication: a conceptual framework In order to avoid these pitfalls, it is paramount to tailor knowledge to the level of understanding, needs and demands of the target audience. Guided by Lavis’ extension of Lasswell’s communication model effective communication depends on tailoring what is being said (content), how it is being said (language), how it is communicated (channel) to whom (audience) and with what purpose (intended effect) (7,15). Although the ‘who’, the ‘what’ and the ‘to whom’ are often taken into consideration, the ‘how’ is often overlooked in communication to decision-makers (7, 16). Strikingly, it is precisely this ‘how’ aspect of the communication process that might be crucial in influencing evidence-informed decision making. Drawn from the literature on the field of science communication, visual communication and usercentred design, we formulated a number of core components approaching this ‘how’ aspect (see Figure 1). These components can be divided in translational components and design components, determining how the content is said, or how the content is communicated, respectively.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw