top of page
  • White Facebook Icon
  • White Twitter Icon

Solving the
systems challenge
in science

communication.

Science often fails to reach the right people for two reasons: poor scicomm and a broken system.

 

Most organisations work on fixing the first. 

Many fail to work on the second. 

Karika works on both.

- MAKING MEANING. MOVING MINDS.

The Problem

In public health, development, and research ecosystems, science must move through many hands.

Researchers & Experts

Produce Evidence,
Need Translation

Institutions & Universities

Generate Knowledge, Shape Incentives

Funders & Philanthropists

Set Priorities, Shape Expectations

Policymakers & Government

Require actionable, 
Contextual evidence

Implementers & Frontline Systems

Need Usable Tools & Contextual Materials

Communities & End Users

Hold lived experiences, Shape legitimacy

Science moves through many hands before it reaches the people who need to act on it.

Each transition, researcher to institution, funder to policymaker, implementer to community, is a place where meaning shifts.

 

What convinces a funder may be unusable by a community health worker. What works in a policy brief may mean nothing to the layman.

 

This is not a content problem. It is a systems problem.

Most institutions communicate to one audience at a time. Karika builds the strategy that holds across all of them

Why communication fails

Each actor brings different motivations, timelines, vocabularies, and priorities.

When these differences are not accounted for in how communication is designed and delivered, the result is unpredictable with a high chance of failure.

Abstract image representing fragmented motivation in form of different sized circles.

Different Motivations

What motivates a researcher to publish is not what motivates a policymaker to act, or a funder to renew funding, or a community to change behaviour. One message cannot serve four different motivations.

Abstract image representing different timelines in form of different sized horizontal lines.

Different Timelines

Research moves in years. Policy windows open and close in weeks. Implementation cycles run to quarters. Communication that doesn't account for timing never arrives on time. 

Abstract image representing different vocabularies as different sized lines forming sqaures.

Different Vocabularies

The language of rigorous evidence is not the language of budget allocation, programme design, or community trust. Each audience speaks a different one — and hears only its own.

Abstract image representing different timelines in form of a mandala image.

Different Priorities

What counts as meaningful impact to a funder may be invisible to a frontline worker. What matters to a community may not register in a policy brief. Each measures differently — and acts accordingly.

This leads to predictable failures at each level. 

Fragmented Institutional Narratives

Missed Policy Windows

Weak Community Uptake

Underutilised Evidence

Diluted Programme Impact

Credibility Gaps with funders, stakeholders & communities

The Three Part approach

Researching the ecosystem.
Building the strategy.

Activating the assets.

01

Research the Ecosystem

Map before we build

Every engagement begins by mapping the ecosystem your organisation operates within. The actors, their incentives, the power structures, the communication gaps, and the policy windows that are open or closing. No strategy is designed before this picture is clear.

02

Build the Strategy

Design for the system, not silo

Communication frameworks are designed to work across the full system, aligned with your project goals, the policy cycles you need to influence, and the implementation pathways that actually determine uptake. Strategy is not a document. It is a set of decisions about where to direct effort and why.

03

Activate the Assets

Deliver what the system can use

The final stage develops the communication materials and tools each actor in the system actually needs policy-ready narratives, community-rooted content, institutional messaging, and the capacity for your teams to sustain this independently after the engagement ends.

Ready to treat scicomm as a capability, not a checkbox.

Research institutions, funded organisations, and science-based enterprises in India are doing work of genuine consequence. And yet the communication surrounding that work, for funders, for policy makers, for the public, for industry, routinely fails to represent it with the same rigour.​

At Karika, our three-part approach helps close this gap and drive impact, not only awareness.

Decoupled from Goals

No Stakeholder Strategy

First Budget Cut

Scaling without a Story

Knowledge Deficit Model

Active Outreach but not Influential

RECOGNISE ANY OF THESE?
THAT'S WHERE WE START.

Ready to rethink your communications strategy?

कारिका — a concise, authoritative treatise Strategic Science Communication Consultancy India · © 2026 Karika

bottom of page