It is necessary to communicate the findings of social research to educate the public, challenge problematic beliefs and inform the political discourse (Uggen & Inderbitzen, 2010). In the field of criminology, this is essential given the highly political nature of criminal justice policy and the fact that criminological findings on how to meet needs and keep society safe are often complex, countercultural and counterintuitive to many. How best to do so, however, presents challenges to academics of all disciplines. Research on science communication is burgeoning, finding common pitfalls around the framing of research communications, their visual and linguistic presentation, and the pedagogical techniques commonly employed. When communicating with the public, many educators rely on traditional lecturing methods, neglecting situated, discussionbased learning. Yet, the evidence suggests that traditional lecturing is not experienced as engaging and does not sufficiently hold learners’ attention, rendering it ineffective. Rather, research consistently shows the benefits of facilitating independent learning and engaging learners dialogically to explore deeply held assumptions. Research pertaining to framing, meanwhile, shows that challenging existing narratives and justifying reform in relation to crime and justice requires careful consideration as to which findings and arguments are prioritised, and what types of language, values and metaphors are used.