Stages of Communication Research: Formative, Process, and Summative

When researchers and media practitioners plan a communication project – whether it’s a public health campaign, a documentary series, or an advertising drive – they rarely ask just one question. They ask three: What do we need to know before we begin? How are things going while we’re running it? And did it actually work once it’s done? These questions map directly onto a timeline-based classification of communication research: formative research (before), process research (during), and summative research (after). Together, they form a continuous research cycle that keeps communication purposeful, adaptive, and accountable at every stage of a project’s life.

Why classify research by stage? 🔗

Research in communication is not a single event that happens at the end of a project to check whether it worked. It is an ongoing discipline that informs decisions throughout the entire project lifecycle. According to program evaluation experts, while these types of evaluation differ in their intended purposes and timing, every evaluation effort should ultimately be guided by good research questions – ones that are important, insight-producing, and tied to the program’s goals.

Classifying research by stage helps practitioners answer three critical questions at exactly the right time: Who is our audience and what do they need? Is our content reaching them and working as intended? And what was the real impact of this effort? Skipping any one of these stages creates gaps that can undermine even the most well-funded campaigns. Understanding each stage individually – and how they connect – is essential for anyone working in journalism, strategic communication, or media management.

Formative research: what happens before the project begins 🔗

Formative research is the foundational stage. It is conducted before a communication program or project is fully developed or implemented. Its core purpose is to gather information that will directly shape the design of the communication effort – from message framing to channel selection to content style.

As defined in communication evaluation literature, formative evaluation refers to activities undertaken to furnish information that will guide program design – helping planners identify who is most affected by a problem, understand existing knowledge, beliefs and attitudes, determine barriers to action, and learn about audience media habits and preferences.

What formative research actually does 🔗

In practical terms, formative research helps a communication team avoid the fundamental mistake of creating content for an audience they don’t understand. It can involve focus groups, in-depth interviews, literature reviews, secondary data analysis (such as demographic or survey data), and audience segmentation studies.

One particularly important application in mass communication is pre-testing. Pre-testing involves exposing a draft communication product – such as a radio spot, poster, or TV storyboard – to a convenience sample of the intended audience to measure comprehension, cultural acceptability, attractiveness of the message, and audience identification with it. Programs often run multiple pre-tests to get the message right before investing in expensive production or broadcast time.

The terms “formative” and “summative” evaluation were first introduced by philosopher of science Michael Scriven in his 1967 work The Methodology of Evaluation – originally in the context of instructional design, but now widely applied across communication, public health, and media research.

The risk of skipping formative research 🔗

Without formative research, a campaign risks solving a problem that doesn’t exist, or speaking in a language the audience doesn’t connect with. This is not just a theoretical concern – it is one of the most common reasons why communication campaigns fail to generate the intended behavior change or audience engagement. A well-designed formative phase significantly reduces this risk by ensuring the project starts with a grounded understanding of the audience and context.

Process research: what happens while the project runs 🔗

Process research – also referred to as process evaluation or implementation monitoring – is conducted during the project. Its job is to track whether the communication program is being implemented as planned and to monitor how the audience is receiving and responding to the content in real time.

Process evaluation is conducted while a program is being implemented in order to document the implementation and to understand if a health communication program is being delivered as planned. This applies equally to media campaigns, journalism initiatives, development communication programs, and public information campaigns.

What process research tracks 🔗

Process evaluation may take several forms, one of which is monitoring outputs – tracking the number of materials distributed, radio spots aired, community events held, or social media posts published. This data tells managers whether the program is running on schedule and at the intended scale.

But process research goes beyond counting outputs. It also captures audience reach and reception – how many people were actually exposed to the content, how they reacted to it, and whether any unintended consequences are emerging. A process evaluation can tell you whether your program is being implemented as expected, and whether the assumptions in your theory of change hold up – giving researchers the opportunity to course-correct mid-stream rather than waiting until the project ends to discover a fundamental flaw.

The FAO’s training resources on communication program monitoring make an important distinction: monitoring asks “Are things going all right?” while evaluation asks “Did it work?” Process research occupies the space of the former – it is observational, descriptive, and action-oriented. A manager who skips this stage misses the chance to start desirable activities, change directions when needed, or stop unproductive ones before they consume further resources.

Process research vs. outcome measurement 🔗

A key boundary to understand: process research tracks implementation fidelity and audience reception, but it does not measure whether the desired change in knowledge, attitudes, or behavior has actually occurred. That is the job of summative research. Confusing the two leads to over-claiming at the process stage and under-designing at the summative stage. Process evaluation stops short of answering the question: did the desired behavior change occur among members of the intended audience? – that question belongs to the final stage.

Summative research: what happens after the project ends 🔗

Summative research is conducted at the conclusion of a communication project. Its central purpose is to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the effort – did the program achieve its intended goals? What changed in the audience’s knowledge, attitudes, or behaviors? Was the communication investment worth it?

Summative evaluations are conducted at or near the end of a program cycle, and are intended to show whether the program achieved its intended outcomes – its effects on individuals, organizations, or communities – and to indicate the ultimate value, merit, and worth of the program.

Methods and focus of summative research 🔗

Summative research tends to be more quantitative in nature. It frequently uses pre-post survey designs, controlled comparisons, or statistical analysis to measure change across defined target outcomes. Summative evaluation is usually conducted using predetermined criteria and involves collecting data through surveys, tests, or other methods to measure the outcomes of the program.

In mass communication, summative research might measure shifts in audience awareness following a public service campaign, changes in voting behavior after a media literacy initiative, or increases in a brand’s recall after an advertising campaign. The key word is impact – summative research is concerned not just with what was done, but with what difference it made.

Outcome vs. impact 🔗

Within summative research, it is useful to distinguish between outcomes and impact. An outcome refers to the direct, measurable result of a program – for example, an increase in awareness of a health issue among a target audience. Impact refers to the broader, longer-term change – for example, a measurable reduction in risky behavior in that same community over the following year. Rigorous summative research attempts to capture both, though impact evaluation often requires longer timelines and more robust research design.

Evaluation can measure the extent to which observed changes in outcomes can be linked to a communication program, and can help plan for the next program phase. This last point matters: summative findings should not just close the loop on one project – they should feed directly into the formative stage of the next.

How the three stages work together 🔗

The power of this classification is not in any individual stage, but in how they connect. Integrating formative and summative evaluation encourages stakeholder engagement throughout the entire evaluation process, and ensures that programs remain relevant and effective as challenges evolve.

In large-scale, well-funded communication programs, all three types of research are conducted systematically. In smaller or resource-constrained settings, practitioners may only manage formative and some process monitoring – which, while not ideal, is still far better than launching blind without any research. Large-scale, well-funded programs will use all three types of evaluation, whereas those with limited budgets or evaluation know-how often stop at formative or process evaluation.

Each stage also informs the others. Strong formative research makes process monitoring more precise, because you know in advance what to look for. Rigorous process research makes summative evaluation more credible, because you can confirm the program was actually implemented as planned before attributing any outcomes to it. And thorough summative research makes future formative research richer, because you carry forward lessons learned rather than starting from zero.

Practical implications for media and communication professionals 🔗

For students of journalism and mass communication, understanding this three-stage classification is not just an academic exercise – it is a practical framework for how responsible media projects are designed, run, and evaluated. Whether you are developing a documentary, planning a digital content campaign, managing a public relations initiative, or designing a health communication program, the before-during-after research model keeps your work grounded in evidence rather than assumption.

The monitoring and evaluation guidance from the PrEP Communications Accelerator recommends planning M&E from the very beginning of a campaign, using mixed methods across both monitoring and evaluation, and sharing findings publicly so the broader communication community can build on what was learned. That culture of evidence-based communication – where research is not an afterthought but a structural part of every project – is what separates effective campaigns from expensive guesswork.

What do you think? Consider a recent public health campaign or media initiative in your country – can you identify where formative, process, or summative research may have influenced its design and outcomes? And if a campaign you recall seemed to miss its mark with its audience, which stage of research do you think was skipped or poorly executed?

References

1. https://bradroseconsulting.com/understanding-different-types-of-program-evaluation/
2. https://communication.iresearchnet.com/development-communication/communication-evaluation/
3. https://www.evalcommunity.com/career-center/formative-evaluation-versus-summative-evaluation/
4. https://connect.springerpub.com/content/book/978-0-8261-7302-7/part/part03/chapter/ch13
5. https://guide.idinsight.org/process-evaluation/
6. https://www.fao.org/4/a0406e/a0406e09.htm
7. https://sbccimplementationkits.org/lessons/task-7-monitoring-and-evaluation/
8. https://accelerator.prepwatch.org/demand-creation/phase-7/