Introduction
The effective communication of research findings to policymakers is crucial for closing the gap between evidence and policy in African peacebuilding. Despite advances in peacebuilding research and digital tools, many findings do not influence decision-making due to misaligned communication, misunderstandings of what information policymakers need, and insufficient focus on knowledge translation, among other factors.¹ The guidelines below draw on empirical findings from my recent study on policy pathways for localized digital peacebuilding in Africa, conducted as part of my Research Policy Fellowship with the Social Science Research Council’s African Peacebuilding and Development Dynamics (APDD) Program.
Conversations during the study, which included policy and institutional actors, practitioners, and experts, ended with a request for participants’ suggestions on how best to communicate research findings to policymakers and institutional actors. This guideline is the outcome of suggestions and insights gained from interviews and exchanges with participants in the study and colleagues at my fellowship host institution, the Research and Policy Unit of the Institute for Peace and Security Studies (IPSS) in Addis Ababa. These insights are presented as actionable principles for researchers, fellows, practitioners, and policy intermediaries who want to ensure that rigorous, locally grounded research translates into policy decisions and institutional actions on digital peacebuilding, localization, and governance in African peace and security.
Lead with Attention, Not Context
Policymakers are often overwhelmed, time-constrained, and sometimes unfamiliar with disciplinary tools and concepts. Therefore, research communication must receive attention before it can inform decisions. Participants consistently advised leading with something visible, tangible, and immediately relevant instead of background information, methodology, or framing. A working digital prototype, a locally developed tool, or a striking visual demonstration of a problem can open doors that a long-winded report cannot. It is strategically important to design the first contact to generate curiosity and a sense of relevance. Findings can then follow.
Start with the Conclusion
Traditional academic communication, which builds toward findings through literature, methodology, and analysis, is often poorly suited to policy audiences. Several participants said long papers are not read and that the most effective communication begins with the “so what?” A multilateral institutional actor noted, “There are decision makers who hate reading. Therefore, you do your analysis in a kind of narration. Long papers? Forget it, nobody’s going to read it.”Another cited an example where the (now former) Executive Director of the West Africa Network for Peacebuilding (WANEP), Dr. Chukwuemeka Eze, began his presentation during a summit of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), with its striking conclusion, which predicted Coup d’etats in the region, and immediately grabbed sharp attention and sparked curiosity beyond the allocated two-minute presentation.
Structure all policy-facing communication with the actionable conclusion first. Follow with supporting evidence for those who wish to engage further. Offer the full paper as a resource, not as the primary means of communication.
Use Visual and Concise Formats
Participants recommend replacing long narrative reports with concise, visually driven formats. One-pagers, data dashboards, and infographics that visualize conflict trends, coverage gaps, or recommendation priorities are more likely to be engaged with and retained. “The most effective approaches I feel can work are clear, concise policy briefs with actionable recommendations,” explained one participant.
Simple infographics can translate complex findings into accessible formats without sacrificing analytical integrity. For researchers with limited budgets, free or low-cost tools like Canva, Google Slides, and Microsoft PowerPoint can also be used effectively to create polished visual summaries. The goal is not simplification, but accessibility. Produce a one-page visual summary for every substantive research output. Invest in design as a communication strategy, not as an afterthought.
Humanize Findings Through Storytelling
Data alone rarely moves decision-makers to act. Participants emphasized the power of recorded, ethically collected testimonies, short field videos, and human narratives to make statistics emotionally and politically clear. One participant described the goal as communication that “causes goose pimples” and forces leaders to reckon with human consequences rather than abstract trends.
Digital storytelling and combining data with first-person accounts from affected communities—youth, women, and frontline practitioners—can bridge the gap between evidence and political will. Accompany research findings with short, ethically produced testimonial content from the field. Use storytelling to connect data to human experience and to demonstrate the stakes of inaction.
Engage Sensitive Findings in Closed, Trust-Based Settings
Not all research findings can be communicated publicly without risk. Participants highlighted that sensitive conflict data, early warnings, or politically difficult findings are best introduced in private settings before public dissemination. Breakfast or dinner meetings, closed briefings, and informal engagements create conditions for honest reception and reduce political denialism or defensive responses. For politically sensitive findings, develop a sequenced communication strategy that begins in closed, trust-based environments. Allow decision-makers to engage privately before findings enter public discourse. It is equally important to uphold ethical standards throughout this process. Researchers should ensure that findings are shared in a manner that prioritizes participant safety and confidentiality. All communication involving sensitive material should undergo appropriate ethical review, and care must be taken to avoid re-identifying individuals or exposing communities to additional risk. Attention to these considerations helps preserve trust and maintain the credibility of both the research and the researcher.
Use a Multi-Platform, Multi-Level Engagement Strategy
No single format or channel is sufficient. Depending on your long-term goal, effective policy communication requires a deliberate combination of platforms and audiences, including formal policy briefs, roundtable discussions, webinars, and direct face-to-face engagements with ministries, parliamentary committees, and sometimes Senate-level actors. As participants noted:
“Best way, most effective ways to communicate findings of research are policy brief, policy roundtable, in the AU, regionalize it to the RECs, use Zoom.”
“Face-to-face dialogues with ministries and parliamentary committees. You can even go up to, now we have in some countries, the Senate.”
Map your target audience across institutional levels and design a differentiated communication plan. Match format, tone, and depth to each audience. Do not rely on a single output or event.
Ensure Local Ownership and Validation
Findings carry significantly more weight when they are perceived as homegrown and validated through inclusive processes and are not simply imported from external research agendas. Participants emphasized that legitimacy is built through process, not only through the quality of the analysis.
A public validation process involving sample groups, including youth, women, and community-level actors, strengthens both the legitimacy and the policy uptake of research recommendations.
Build validation into the research communication process. Present findings to representative groups before finalizing recommendations. Document and report the validation process as part of the research output.
Target Recommendations to Specific Institutions and Mandates
A recurring finding from both the research and audience feedback from my fellowship dissemination events is that recommendations are most actionable when tied to the specific institution, organ, or body with the mandate to act. Generic recommendations addressed to “policymakers” or “the AU” diffuse accountability and reduce uptake.
For each recommendation, identify the primary institutional actor with the mandate and capacity to implement it. Name the organ, specify the action, and, where reasonable, indicate a realistic timeframe or existing policy vehicle through which it can be advanced. But be respectful, know your place, and avoid sounding overly prescriptive or directive.
Address the Response Gap Directly
A structural challenge identified across the data is the gap between research findings and policy response. This gap is both technical and political. Some decision-makers lack awareness; others have awareness but not political will.² Communication strategies must address both.
Where technical awareness is low, demonstrations, prototypes, and simplified briefs are the entry point. Where political will is the constraint, coalition-building, peer pressure through regional bodies, and engagement with legislative arms can create conditions for uptake.
Diagnose the nature of the response gap before designing a communication strategy. To make this process actionable, consider the following diagnostic questions: Is the intended audience aware of the problem or finding? Do they have sufficient capacity, skills, or resources to respond? Is there political will or motivation to act?
Tailor the approach to whether the barrier is awareness, capacity, or political will, and engage accordingly.
Sustain Engagement Beyond the Launch
Participants and broader perspectives on research uptake highlight the importance of sustained, relationship-based engagement with policy audiences.³ A report launch or seminar is a starting point. Follow-up briefings, ongoing relationships with institutional focal points, and participation in policy processes as the research is considered and debated all increase the likelihood that findings shape decisions.
Develop a post-dissemination engagement plan for each research output. Identify two or three institutional relationships to maintain over the medium term and create occasions to revisit and update findings as policy processes evolve. For example, researchers may schedule periodic policy briefings with key decision-makers every six months or conduct informal check-ins through short virtual meetings or email updates to share further developments. These follow-up activities help keep the research relevant, foster trusted relationships, and ensure that findings remain aligned with emerging policy priorities.
Conclusion
Rigorous research intended to have policy impact, but which never reaches decision-makers, may never change anything. Programs like the Research Policy Fellowship (RPF) from the SSRC’s African Peacebuilding and Development Dynamics (APDD) are a crucial bridge in this regard. The RPF offers researchers like me the resources and opportunities for policy-relevant research, and placements at relevant institutions to actively participate in policy discussions, network with stakeholders, and engage in researcher-policymaker exchanges, thereby shaping one’s career and impact beyond the fellowship period. The principles outlined here should be considered part of the research design and dissemination processes. In African peacebuilding contexts, where the stakes of inaction are high and institutional attention is scarce, how findings are communicated is as consequential as what they find. Researchers who treat communication as a strategy, not an afterthought, are most likely to achieve policy impact.
Please read more about the APDD Research Policy Fellowship.
Endnotes
- Jennifer Brown et al., “Research Uptake in Policymaking: From Papers to Policy,” London: CEDIL Research Directorate, 2018, https://cedilprogramme.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Research-Uptake-in-Policymaking-From-Papers-to-Policy.pdf.
- Odhiambo Alphonce Kasera et al., Between Knowledge and Power: A Review of the Research-Policy Nexus in Africa’s Social Policy, n.d., accessed April 10, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Odhiambo-Kasera/publication/392863480_Between_Knowledge_and_Power_A_Review_of_the_Research-Policy_Nexus_in_Africa’s_Social_Policy/links/6855955cb8078e0c248e72fc/Between-Knowledge-and-Power-A-Review-of-the-Research-Policy-Nexus-in-Africas-Social-Policy.pdf.
- Doris Yimgang et al., “A Scoping Review of Researchers’ Involvement in Health Policy Dialogue in Africa,” Systematic Reviews 10, no. 1 (2021): 190, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01745-y.
