Wetenschapscommunicatie doe je samen: dialoog, co-creatie en verbinding tussen inwoners en onderzoekers binnen Nationaal Programma Heerlen-Noord

Designing science communication with residents in Heerlen-Noord: needs, preferences, and enabling factors.

This study is part of a larger two-phase project that aims to improve how research conducted within the National Programme Heerlen-Noord (NPHN; Nationaal Programma Heerlen-Noord, n.d.) is communicated to residents of Heerlen-Noord. This paper reports on Phase 1 of that project.
In this project, we define science communication as “organized, explicit, and intended actions that aim to communicate scientific knowledge, methodology, processes, or practices in settings where non-scientists are a recognized part of the audiences” (Horst et al., 2016, p. 883). Heerlen-Noord is an urban area that faces long-term socioeconomic challenges since the closure of the Limburg coal-mining industry in 1974 (Knotter, 2012). Current statistics indicate persistent inequalities, including higher poverty rates and lower literacy levels (CBS, 2026a,b). NPHN is a long-term, area-based programme that seeks to strengthen opportunities across key life domains: housing, safety, education, work, and health.

While the Open University of the Netherlands evaluates multiple local interventions within the 25-year programme of NPHN, research insights are not yet consistently shared back to residents in a way that is explicitly designed to fit residents’ needs and preferences and that enable engagement. ‘Needs’ are what residents require to access and use the information; ‘preferences’ are what they would choose if feasible; and ‘enabling factors’ are contextual conditions or design features that increase the likelihood that residents are reached, stay engaged, and act on the information. Residents hold essential local knowledge about what feels useful, respectful, and workable in everyday life; this project takes that expertise as a starting point for designing science communication that fits local contexts.
In Phase 1, we engage in active dialogue with residents to map their needs, preferences, and enabling factors regarding science communication about NPHN-related research. This phase is essential because researchers may implicitly design communication based on assumptions that do not align with residents’ everyday contexts, which can lead to mismatches in tone, channel choice, and perceived relevance (Dawson, 2018). Phase 1 will yield 1) cross-cutting recommendations for resident-centred science communication across NPHN interventions, and 2) concrete design requirements to guide Phase 2.

In Phase 2, residents (the community team members) and researchers (the academic team members) co-create and implement a science communication product for one ongoing intervention.