What journalists want...

When I started communicating psychology in the media, I used to find myself trying to convince sometimes reluctant psychologists that public engagement is worthwhile. That has changed. It's rare now for me to meet a psychologist who doesn't agree that if psychological research is to make a difference, it needs to be out there, in the world.

But that doesn't mean that everyone succeeds in getting their research noticed in the same way that other disciplines do. Economists, for example, still have a lot more sway when it comes to policy, and of course, it is the work of 'behavioural economists' that has brought some branches of psychology to the fore.

When I mention psychologists to non-psychologists, I find some now have a fairly good idea of what they do. Among others, two ideas still predominate – that psychologists are therapists, who know what you're thinking and want to know your dreams, or that they study the science of the bleeding obvious, making up theories of the what-your-bikini-says-about-your-personality variety. (We've all seen features of this kind, so maybe we shouldn't be surprised.)

The aim of my work in the media, whether on the radio, online or in my books, is to communicate what psychologists actually do, along with something of the range of fascinating research that's out there. There is more room now for the nuance, for the opportunity for psychologists to be able to say that although there isn't one cut-and-dried answer, the research points in a particular direction; that smacking children can be harmful, for example, or that crowds don't on the whole run wild.

In my time I have also seen a real improvement in the media in understanding what psychologists can and can't answer. But it's also worth psychologists trying to understand what journalists want too.

Something interesting, and clear

What journalists want is something original and interesting to share with their readers, viewers or listeners. That's all. They want something that makes their editor and their audience think, 'gosh that's interesting', and then ask their friends if they heard about it. Think about what is really fascinating about your new finding. It might be the implications which will grab people, rather than the results themselves.

Then they want you to explain it as well as possible. You also want your research to be accurately conveyed, so in a sense, you are in it together. When a guest on my show brilliantly and fluently explains their new research, I get congratulated on a good programme. So it's in my interest to work out what the study really means and to support my guest in explaining it well. 

Journalists want to know in the clearest way possible: what did you do? What have you found? Why does it matter? They may phrase these questions differently, of course. If I asked them like that in every radio interview it would soon start to sound repetitive. But however I phrase them, these are essentially what I'm asking.  

Think about how you would sum up your new paper or your work in a sentence. Not in a clever headline full of puns, but in a simple line. Journalism students learn about the five Ws – who, what, where, when and why. Pick up a newspaper or online news story and look at the first sentence of a story.

The chances are it has at least three of these Ws in, and sometimes all five. So think in advance of any interview how you'd sum up your research with the Ws. The nuance and the caveats can come later. (It's also particularly useful on social media, where word count can of course be very short.)

Features in newspapers or items on the radio are presented in the opposite order to a paper in a journal. It's not a question of the background, followed by your methods and results, then what it all means for the future. It's the other way around. The most important thing is what your findings mean. Why you did it in the first place, and how it builds on what's been done before, comes later.

Psychologists often worry about answering difficult questions, but these tend to be asked in the hope of finding a way of explaining the work simply. The hardest questions are likely to be of the 'how could this be used?' variety, rather than about the data in table 3. It's worth thinking in advance about the question that you'd most hate to be asked. 

To understand your research

Journalists want to make sense of your research, but if they're not a specialist this might be the first time they've ever covered this subject. Even a science specialist might have spent the morning on climate change or the discovery of a new species of bee before turning their mind to your study. So don't assume they know all about it. Think in advance about what someone who has never thought about this subject before needs to know about it.

When psychologists aren't happy with the final result, whether it's in a magazine or online or on TV, it usually relates to what isn't included, rather than what is. If you're being interviewed, try not to expect too much. A short piece in a newspaper or an interview on the radio will never contain all the nuances and caveats of your published paper. 

Think of it as a very brief abstract with a couple of implications for real-life stuck on the end. If there is one caveat that you are desperate to have included, then simply ask. Say that there is this one thing you'd really like to get across. But don't expect to have a whole list in there: if members of the audience want this much detail, they'll need to turn to your paper. All journalists fear boring people.  

It's also worth remembering that like most of us, journalists are under pressure at work. The number of staff in newsrooms working in papers and the broadcast media has been cut in recent years, so they rarely have as long as they'd ideally like to get across a subject. 

They are battling deadlines, and sometimes battling editors too. They might be longing to write a detailed feature which synthesises the latest research. I'm in the fortunate position of getting to write those longer pieces for BBC Future, but many journalists are lucky to have the space to fit in one bit of evidence, never mind several. 

Timely information

When a journalist gets in touch, reply quickly. They always work to deadlines. If you can't do it or don't want to, then just say you can't. Don't muck them about or keep them waiting for the sake of it.

If your university is sending out a press release, make sure you keep some time free on that date for interviews: all that effort is wasted if you're not available. And the faster you respond to any last-minute queries, the less likely journalists are to get something wrong because they assumed something was right but didn't get a chance to check it with you.

To get it right

Some academics fear that journalists are out to stitch them up, all too ready to take their words out of context. This can happen of course: I can think of one occasion where a journalist made up every one of my quotes. But it really is rare, and if they do get it wrong, it's their editor who receives the complaint and asks them to explain themselves. They don't like that. Ultimately, journalists and broadcasters want to get it right. 

…and what Psychologists need to know

Firstly, should you accept the invitation to speak with the media? There can be reticence to comment on what should happen in policy terms because the ideal research has not been done yet. The chances are that the ideal research might never get done, but in the meantime decisions about policy are being made. Surely it's a good idea for policymakers to take into account the views of someone steeped in the subject, even when the research is not yet definitive?

Of course, if you know nothing about the topic then say no. But do remember you know your subject. Even outside the precise in-depth area you are studying at the moment, you know about research and psychology in general. Think of it as a friendly, enthusiastic chat about psychology, not a test or a fight.

So I would urge people to say yes to interviews if you can, and then to consider the following points.

What kind of interview is this?

Before the interview, there are plenty of things you should be asking. What sort of show is it? Is it TV, audio or written (good to know whether you need to brush your hair)? Some podcasts video you at the same time now, so ask if it's just audio or if you will be seen.

Is it a specialist programme or more general? If it's a specialist programme/correspondent who's interviewing you, they will know more about your subject than a general interviewer who has to cover everything. But unless the audience is also specialist, you still need to explain it in a way that someone with no background in the subject would understand.

Is it an interview with just you, or a discussion with others? Or are they looking for clips to put into a 'package', alongside other interviewees? If there are other people, who are they? Who is the intended audience? Is it for a local, national or global audience? If it's a podcast, it might be aimed at one very specific kind of audience, such as people who've experienced a particular condition.

Examples liven up any interview and the intended audience could affect the kinds of examples you give. For example, in an interview on nostalgia, saying that you look back fondly on watching Grange Hill and eating Opal Fruits, won't make much sense if the programme is on a global channel.

This next one is really important. Is the interview live? Many a politician has been caught out when they think they're not on air. If it's not live, ask beforehand if it's OK to stop and start a sentence again if you muck it up? Ask how long they're going to interview you for and how long the final interview might be, to give an idea of how much detail you can expect to get in. Don't be horrified if it seems short. Even five minutes counts as long in radio terms, and eight is a positive luxury. 

Some radio shows have the phone lines open all the time now or read out texts and emails from the audience. Check whether it's a phone-in, just to avoid being taken by surprise. Psychologists in particular need to be clear on what they are and aren't qualified to do. I always stress that I'm not a clinical psychologist and I'm not qualified to tackle individuals' problems, but that what I can do is to explain what the research on this topic has found.

Once you know what kind of interview you're doing, you can start to prepare. The big advantage these days is that you can almost always go online and see or hear a previous episode, or to read features. This gives a sense of the tone and how academic it's OK to be. You can match your tone to theirs.

It's worth practising explaining your research to someone who doesn't know about it: not as though you're in a lecture, but as though a friend in the pub has asked you what you're working on now.

You need to prepare

Try to anticipate what they might ask. What would your nosiest friend ask? If you need to explain something complex, it's worth working out a good analogy in advance, but make sure it's not even more complicated than what you were trying to say in the first place.

Can you put your research into a wider context? How common is the problem you are discussing? Who is affected? It's also worth a quick Google to check the topic isn't in the news that day. Journalists are steeped in the news and love to make connections, so if something related has happened they might ask you about it.

This is not for your colleagues

Then it's time for the interview itself. The most important thing to remember if you really want to engage a general audience is that this interview is not aimed at your peers. It's tempting to picture them sneering at your over-simplification and adding in all the caveats, but your task is to make it understandable to the audience.

Avoid any jargon people might not understand. Psychology students and postgrads spend years learning to phrase things in the particular way required by the subject. In a sense, you need to unlearn all that.

The second most important thing to remember is to sound enthusiastic. If you don't sound interested in the topic you've been studying for 20 years, then no one else will be either.

If you get your words muddled up and it's not live, then usually it's OK to start the sentence again. If it's live, then say something like 'let me put it another way' and make your point again. And just as you might in a lecture, to make sure people are listening, signpost that your main point is coming up by saying, 'the most important issue is', or 'it's crucial to understand that…'

Don't be rude to the interviewer. Assume that their viewers or listeners like them. If they summarise the research and don't quite get it right, say, 'Well let me make this clearer. What we found is…'

It's a work in progress

Just like in job interviews, there will always be more you wish you'd said. If you can get over the two main points you want to say, then that's good and you've done well. Don't expect to be able to cram a lifetime's research into a few minutes.

If a colleague is rude to you afterwards, it's probably because they wish they'd been asked. Don't take it to heart. Likewise, if a viewer or reader takes issue with you on social media, that's just one view. If millions of people listened, then even if ten complain, in percentage terms that's minuscule. As psychologists, you know that negative comments have more salience.

The more you are interviewed, the easier it gets. The main thing that people tell me is that they can't believe how quickly it goes. The prep always takes longer than the interview.

And remember that science is a work in progress. We don't know all the answers. It's fine to say that no one knows yet, but that it's something researchers would love to do more on. I do know people who've been offered funding as a result of an interview, so you never know, maybe you'll discover the answer to that thorny question sooner than you think.

Claudia Hammond is the Presenter of All in the Mind on BBC Radio 4, author of the newly published The Keys to Kindness, and Visiting Professor of the Public Understanding of Psychology at the University of Sussex.