In the communication skills training workshops I run for researchers, when scientists are asked to explain their work, many begin with the method. They describe the technique they used, the data they collected, or the model they developed.

From inside the discipline, this makes perfect sense. Methods are often where much of the intellectual work happens. But for someone outside the field, the explanation can quickly become difficult to follow.

Why? Because the listener is still trying to understand something more basic: what problem the research is trying to solve.

Over the years, working with scientists and researchers across Europe on science communication skills, I’ve noticed how often explanations become clearer once researchers start somewhere slightly earlier in the story. I challenge them to consider what question they are trying to answer, why the question (and their research) matter, and what was not known before this question was asked and the research conducted.

Once the problem becomes visible, the method usually makes much more sense.

In many ways, good research explanations are less about simplifying the science and more about helping the audience see the path into the work. And that path often starts with the question.