Disseminating Practicum Project Findings
Four venues, four different documents from one project. The Freemantle and Watt quotation is the argument: dissemination is not distribution.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 16, 2026
Same findings, three audiences, three different documents
The quotation the prompt opens with does the analytic work: effective dissemination is more than distribution and diffusion, because it involves target groups becoming aware of, receiving, accepting and using information. Each of those four verbs can fail separately, and naming which one your audience is most likely to fail at tells you what the document has to do. A journal readership will become aware and receive but may never use; practicum-site colleagues may accept and use but never become aware unless somebody puts it in front of them. So start by identifying who would find your findings most valuable and why, which is the prompt's first question, and be specific — the people who would change something as a result, not everyone who might find it interesting. Name two of them and say what decision each one holds, because that decision is what the document has to reach.
Then work the four venues, because the prompt asks how the emphasis differs. At a professional conference the audience is peers scanning many projects: the method matters, the transferability matters, and you have three minutes at a poster. At your practicum site the audience already knows the setting, so background is wasted and the emphasis falls on what changes on Monday, who is affected and what it costs — and the political question of who is implicitly criticised by your findings is real. In a peer-reviewed journal in your specialisation the standards are methodological and the reviewers will ask about limitations you would gloss elsewhere. In an online forum for a wider readership the constraint is that readers do not share your vocabulary and may not share your clinical context, so the emphasis moves to the problem and away from the design. Say which venue you would prioritise and why, since resources are finite and choosing is the judgement assessed.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Distinguish dissemination from distribution using the awareness-to-use sequence.
- 02Identify audiences by what they could change rather than by interest.
- 03Adapt emphasis, evidence and language to four distinct venues.
- 04Prioritise between venues under finite resources.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01The groups who would find the findings most valuable, with reasons.
- 02How the focus differs at a conference versus the practicum site.
- 03What you would emphasise in a specialist journal.
- 04What you would emphasise in a general online forum.
- 05A prioritisation between venues.
- 06Citations to the week's resources.
Who benefits, then how the message changes for each
What dissemination requires
Use the awareness-to-use sequence to define the task.
Who would find this valuable
Identify audiences by what they could act on.
Conference versus practicum site
Contrast a peer audience with a local one.
The specialist journal
Say what reviewers will require that other venues will not.
The general online forum
Adapt for readers without your vocabulary or context.
Prioritising
Choose where to spend limited effort and justify it.
Dissemination evidence beyond the conference poster
Recommended databases
- Implementation Science
- PubMed Central
- Your specialisation's journals
- The assigned readings
Search sequence
- 1.Read the Freemantle and Watt framing before writing anything.
- 2.Search for knowledge translation evidence rather than dissemination advice.
- 3.Look at author guidelines for a journal in your specialisation.
- 4.Find one study on what makes local dissemination change practice.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.
- 01
Knowledge translation of research findings
Implementation Science (BioMed Central) · 2012
Knowledge translation of research findings — the mechanisms behind uptake.
- 02
What can organisational theory offer knowledge translation in healthcare? A thematic and lexical analysis
BMC Health Services Research · 2018
What organisational theory adds to knowledge translation, useful for the local venue.
- 03
Using Implementation Science to Implement Evidence-Based Practice: A Discursive Paper
Journal of Advanced Nursing · 2025
Implementation science applied to evidence-based practice.
- 04
How to Choose the Right Journal for Your Manuscript
Innovation in Aging (via PubMed Central) · 2019
Choosing a journal — the practical end of the peer-reviewed venue.
- 05
Turning knowledge into action at the point-of-care: the collective experience of nurses facilitating the implementation of evidence-based practice
Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing · 2013
How findings actually reach the point of care.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Treating dissemination as making the findings available.
- Naming audiences by interest rather than by capacity to act.
- Describing the same document for all four venues.
- Avoiding the political question of who your findings implicate.
Submission checklist
- Have you named audiences who could change something?
- Does each venue get a genuinely different emphasis?
- Is the difference in evidence and language, not only in length?
- Have you prioritised between venues?
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.
Written by
Aaron Bishop
MA, Education
assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines
Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.
Reviewed by
Dr. Nathan Cole
PhD, Rhetoric & Composition
Argumentation and thesis development
Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.