Shape a research blog post around one reader question
Shape a research blog post around a reader question, supported answer and clear route back to the research.
About 5 min read · Allow extra time for the practical checks
Choose a question your intended reader can recognise, answer it with the part of your research that actually bears on it and make the route back to the research clear. A blog post can develop one useful argument without reproducing the structure or every finding of a journal article. The selection must not hide a qualification that changes the answer.
Start with the outlet’s actual audience and requirements. This guide concerns writing a post from your own checked research record; it does not establish permission to reuse text or images, guarantee publication or supply findings to present as your own.
Decide what the reader should understand
Name the reader and the question before planning headings. “People interested in education” is a broad audience. “Course teams comparing how handbooks describe feedback timing” gives a writer a more concrete decision about what to explain. Neither audience description establishes what those readers already know; check terminology and context accordingly.
The University of Sussex’s research-blog guidance, checked on 2 November 2026, recommends an accessible argument, a clear opening, examples and a link to the original research. Its suggested structure puts the main point early. Treat this as guidance for a writing task, not permission to remove design information or uncertainty needed to interpret a claim.
Write a one-sentence answer to the reader’s question. Then identify which observation, argument or analysis in the research supports that answer. If the answer depends on work not yet done, change the question or make the proposed status explicit.
Work through an original fictional post plan
The documents, comparison and statements below are invented teaching material. They describe no actual institution, feedback policy, student experience or research finding.
Imagine that a fictional researcher compared two versions of one teaching handbook. In the exercise, the earlier version promises “prompt feedback.” The later version specifies a target of 15 working days. The researcher compared wording only: there are no marking records, return dates, interviews or measurements of student satisfaction. The exercise does not establish whether any target was met.
For an audience of course teams, a useful reader question might be: what can a more specific handbook deadline tell us, and what can it not tell us?
| Post element | Material available in the fictional exercise | Writing decision |
|---|---|---|
| Main observation | Wording changed from prompt feedback to a stated target | Explain the greater specificity of the written commitment |
| Tempting stronger claim | No record of when feedback was actually returned | Do not claim faster delivery |
| Reader relevance | Teams may compare how expectations are expressed | Discuss clarity of wording separately from performance |
| Boundary | Two versions of one teaching document | Keep the conclusion within that comparison |
| Further question | Actual delivery was not examined | Identify it as a separate question requiring other evidence |
A possible opening for this fictional post is:
A clearer feedback deadline tells a reader more about the stated target, but it does not show that feedback arrived sooner. In this exercise, two versions of one handbook differ in how precisely they describe timing. To judge delivery, a reader would need evidence beyond the wording we compared.
The opening gives the reader an answer and identifies its basis. It does not call the wording change an improvement in student experience or generalise from one handbook to a whole sector. The 15-working-day target is part of the invented document, not a recommendation or an actual institution’s requirement.
Build a short route through the argument
Plan the next paragraphs by the questions raised by the opening. In the fictional post, a reader needs to see the wording difference, understand why specificity and delivery are different matters and know what the document comparison can establish. A history of the entire project would delay that route.
Keep enough information about the work to make its meaning recoverable. Here, identifying the two document versions and the fact that only wording was compared is necessary. A blog may not need a section called Methodology, but removing those details would make the example easier to misread.
Give each example a clear job. Do not add a striking anecdote as evidence of a pattern when it only illustrates a concept. If you offer a judgment or proposed application, distinguish it from the research finding and explain the connection.
Leave the reader a usable next step
End with the consequence of the answer you developed. For the fictional post, a bounded next step could be to check whether an account of feedback concerns a written target, observed delivery or both. It could not be a recommendation to adopt a particular deadline on the basis of this exercise.
Link the actual research output and preserve its current status. Check that quotations, numbers and examples still match the cited version. Use a short, accurate author description if the outlet requests one; do not add affiliations, expertise or endorsements that have not been established.
The plain-language summary guide supports explanation for non-specialists. The research-news-release guide addresses a different task: presenting news for journalists. A research blog post should leave its intended reader with a supported answer and a clear way to examine the work behind it.
