A research showcase can contain dozens of posters, each designed for a reader who can stand nearby, scan the detail and ask questions. A camera moving past those posters creates a record of attendance, but it rarely produces a useful explanation of the work. If the intended deliverable is a series of research introductions, commission each station as an editorial unit.
The decision is which research question, evidence and limitation a viewer should understand from each contribution. This is different from buying general event atmosphere or a complete presentation recording. A poster explainer must translate a dense visual argument without overstating what the research establishes.
Select stations by explanatory readiness
Do not choose solely by visual appeal or the most confident presenter. Ask whether the team can supply a clear research question, an approved account of the method, a result or current status, and the main limitation. Some projects may be ready for a public introduction; others may only be suitable for a restricted audience or may not be ready to film.
For work in progress, the contribution can explain what is being investigated and why. It need not invent a successful result. A polished film should not make preliminary work sound settled merely because the presenter speaks fluently.
The NHMRC publication and dissemination guide asks public research communication to make the status of the work clear. Use the institution's responsible research and communications processes to determine what can be said.
Decide what must be seen, not just spoken
Ask each team to nominate one visual that carries the explanation. It might be an approved diagram, a labelled comparison or a selected section of the poster. A whole-poster shot may establish the station, but it should not be assumed to make small data legible.
Provide the authorised source artwork where available and identify any restrictions on reuse. The production supplier needs to know which labels, units and qualifications must remain with a graphic. Cropping a chart for a different frame can remove the condition that makes the result accurate.
Separate the presenter from the authorship record. The person speaking may represent a wider team. Agree how the research group, institution and other contributors should be identified without treating every logo as a sponsor endorsement.
Complete a poster-to-explainer card
| Field | Required answer |
|---|---|
| Research question | What single question will the viewer understand? |
| Project status | Proposed, ongoing, completed, published or another approved description |
| Evidence visual | Exact approved figure or poster section |
| Claim boundary | What the result does and does not support |
| Presenter role | Their relationship to the work |
| Credit line | Approved team and institutional attribution |
| Release route | Audience, approval owner and any timing restriction |
| Useful next step | Where an interested viewer can find authoritative detail |
Complete the card before allocating filming slots. A station with missing release authority should not displace another simply because its presenter is available first.
Fictional example: a pilot study beside a finished project
A fictional showcase features one completed evaluation and one ongoing pilot. The organiser initially asks both presenters to describe “the impact of the research”. The pilot team cannot yet make that claim.
The buyer gives the completed evaluation a results-led explainer with its stated limitations. The pilot receives a question-led introduction explaining what is being tested and what remains unknown. Its title says “Investigating” rather than “Proving”.
Both films use an approved graphic supplied by the research teams. The pilot's image retains its provisional label, while the completed project's chart retains the population and timeframe. The set feels coherent without pretending the projects are at the same stage.
Accept each film on its own evidence
A showcase series can share design and duration targets while allowing different explanatory needs. Check each station against its card: correct status, faithful visual, accurate presenter role and sufficient limitation. Do not approve the entire series solely because the opening animation is consistent.
Ask what happens if the poster changes after filming. A minor label correction and a revised research finding are different editorial events. The latter may require a new explanation, not just a replacement graphic placed under old speech.
For an enquiry, bring the selected station list, completed cards and the institution's approval route to Live Images. Ask whether the work is suitable and what would require a separately agreed specialist provider. Research-showcase production is not assumed to be available. The goal is a set of clear introductions that invite informed interest while preserving the limits of the actual research.
Sources and scope
- NHMRC: Publication and dissemination of research — Public research communication should explain the status of the work and findings.
Prepared with AI assistance for Live Images. Unpublished buyer-resource draft; fictional examples are not client work.