For staff working within Higher Education, delivering researcher development training can be complicated. It requires a careful balance of budgets, timing, and marketing to ensure the right people are on the right training course. And then we hit the frustrating part: when sign-ups don't translate into attendance. 

So, what's the answer? And perhaps more importantly, why do researchers opt out of training that could benefit them in both the short and long term? 

The Engagement Gap 

Let's have a look at some of the reasons why researchers aren't engaging with training opportunities - even if that training has been crafted specifically with their needs in mind. Many engagement challenges stem from one of three common issues. 

1. The audience is too big 

When training is pushed to a broad audience, people often assume it's meant for someone else. It can feel counterintuitive to focus on a niche, particularly if most (if not all) researchers would benefit from attending a training course. 

In our experience, researchers are far more likely to engage when the communications around a training programme speak to their specific needs. From focusing on PhD candidates nearing the end of their research to specific subjects such as Engineering Biology or AI, specificity creates a sense of relevance with the audience. 

2. The audience is too busy 

It goes without saying that researchers are busy people. 
 

Between teaching commitments, grant applications, part-time work, events, and actually doing the work required, researchers are stretched. Even the most ideal training session can be overlooked if it's scheduled during a busy period or takes up too much time. 

Reframing training as an investment in the future can help enormously, particularly if you're communicating the upcoming challenges (such as connecting with industry or communicating with non-academic people during the post-uni job hunt) that the sessions can help to tackle. 

3. The audience has a different problem

As we've seen, researchers are busy and have many conflicting priorities. Training courses that are valuable but don't address the most pressing problems can seem like a luxury. 

Understanding what's really urgent to the audience can be the key to running training programmes that resonate.  

The FAST framework for diagnosing engagement

Rather than guessing why participation is low, Skillfluence recommends using a simple diagnostic tool: FAST. 

 
F – Friction 

Anything that makes participation feel difficult. Points of friction could include: 

• inconvenient training dates/times 

• lengthy registration forms 

• complicated joining instructions 

• uncertainty about what participants will gain
  
  

You can reduce friction by: 

• making registration simple 

• sending automatic calendar invitations and reminders 

• providing clear joining links 

• clearly communicating expectations 

Small changes like these can significantly reduce no-shows. 

A – Audience

Is the invitation reaching the audience that will get the most out of it? Rather than targeting a broad range of possible attendees, it can be more effective to define who'll benefit most from a session. Using phrases such as "this session is for you if..." can help researchers quickly decide whether the training is relevant to them. 
 

S – Stakes

Researchers need a compelling reason not just to sign up, but actually to attend. Focusing on outcomes rather than just topics will help cement the idea that attendees will leave your session with something tangible. 
 

T – Trigger

Whether it's forgetfulness, being overwhelmed, or even just a bit disorganised, it can really pay to use triggers. These can include calendar invites, personalised reminders, messages from colleagues, or posts on social or digital networks that researchers are already using. A firm final reminder the day before a training session can also help nudge people in the right direction! 

Permission matters 

Within universities, time isn't simply managed; it's negotiated. Many researchers need reassurance that attending professional development is a legitimate use of their time. 

Permission can come from supervisors, doctoral colleges, research leads, and the broader institutional culture. When supervisors actively encourage attendance, researchers are often much more likely to engage. 
 

You don't need to redesign everything 

One of the biggest mistakes institutions make is assuming every engagement problem requires a complete overhaul of course content. It can be more beneficial to test one change at a time.  

Tests could include changing a session's title, changing the length of a workshop, increasing the number of reminder emails, or highlighting different outcomes for different cohorts. 

Small, measurable improvements often produce better results than large-scale redesigns. These low-risk "experiments" can provide vital insight without the need to go back to the drawing board. 

Engagement starts long before the event 

One of the most valuable takeaways is that successful engagement isn't created on the day of delivery - it begins weeks beforehand through thoughtful design. 

 
By understanding: 

• who the training is for 

• why it matters now 

• what barriers exist 

• what prompts researchers need 

institutions can dramatically improve participation without increasing workload or redesigning entire programmes.

Ultimately, the goal isn't simply fuller rooms; it's ensuring that more researchers gain the skills, confidence and connections they need to create meaningful impact. 
 

Get in touch 

To find out more about our approach to training engagement or our range of Higher Education programmes, please get in touch.