Andy Churchill,  phd, mba

turn your audience into your champions: ignite curiosity 🔥 scaffold understanding ✔ maximize impact 🚀. The PresentBetter Program for lab research groups & academic institutes -now over 7,000 researchers served.

Every piece of research, when effectively communicated, can spark change. 

In academia. In careers. In society.

But too often, important findings remain hidden, their potential unrealized. 
The importance/impact of research gets:
●	Buried under layers of complexity
●	Communicated without connecting
●	Overwhelmed by scientific terms and processes

This is why I created PresentBetter: 
To transform how your researchers share their ideas with the world. 
Together we distill years of complex study into clear, compelling narratives that resonate with and inspire audiences.
By amplifying researcher’s voices, we elevate the ability to communicate research in ways that:
●	Moves people
●	Propels careers forward
●	Bridges the gap between academia and society

Through PresentBetter.org, I offer tailored solutions to meet diverse needs:
1.	Individual Coaching: One-on-one sessions crafted for your specific presentation challenges.
2.	Lab and Department Workshops: Small group training to elevate your entire team's communication skills.
3.	Institutional Programs: Comprehensive, scalable solutions for universities and research institutions.
4.	Conference and Event Preparation: Targeted coaching for high-stakes presentations that can define careers.
5.	Online Courses: Self-paced learning for researchers seeking flexibility.

We aim to create a future where every researcher's voice resonates with clarity and impact.



PS Wondering if too good to be true? Here's a link to the talk I coached that was voted the best 3 minute research presentation in North America last year. Scroll through the flipbook for the talk, key lessons, minute by minute breakdown, and a description of the program that I used to train the speaker: https://www.presentbetter.org/post/international-award-winning-talk

Co-Founder

I work with individuals and organizations to help researchers present better. I start with helping them find their story and then coach them to deliver it in the most effective way.  Since Covid, my work has focused around helping people navigate the shifts to presenting online: 
👉 your voice (tone, pace, volume, pausing) remains your most important tool, and embracing the attitudes and feeling you want to convey is your most critical skill.
👉 stories still rule: tech interaction tricks are useful, but don't get sucked too far down that rabbit hole because stories are still the most effective driver of deep engagement, learning and memory.
👉 understand the impact of body language: while it has become less impactful on the audience, it still influences your own confidence and energy.
👉 the movement of visuals in person competes with your ability to engage your audience, but online, that same movement helps capture and retain attention: adjust accordingly.

A short selection of past companies & organizations with whom I've worked:
MY01
Engineva
McGill DeSautels School of Business
Research Institute of McGill University Health Care
Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec
Pharmaceutical Sciences World Congress
MUHC Foundation
Bio-Sync
Integrated Program in Neuroscience

Andy Churchill, phd, mba

I share effective strategies for better research + writing (often with AI). 34k+ citations of my research. University Research Chair & Tenured Full Professor.

I am a tenured University Research Chair and Full Professor with 20+ years of research and teaching experience in user experience (UX) design and research focused on gamification, human-computer interaction, and generative artificial intelligence (AI). My Ph.D. research was on the scientific measurement of UX in interactive entertainment. I direct a research group and a graduate degree program at the University of Waterloo, Stratford School of Interaction Design and Business. I'm also a solopreneur and online creator, helping early-career researchers to unlock their full potential.

I have written 300+ research papers (and counting), edited the major games user research book and several high-impact conference proceedings, started a top-tier academic conference series that is now a journal (CHI PLAY), and started companies for UX research and online training. My research programmes have been funded with millions of dollars over the past decade through joint funding from major companies and the Canadian government.

Many of my papers have won best paper awards and have hundreds of citations. In addition, I run  newsletters, a podcast, write daily on social media, and am fascinated by scientific copywriting.

Besides my academic work, my mission is to make the world a better place by creating more enjoyable experiences with technology and translating academic insights into actionable strategies for everyone.

If you want to know more about my academic writing strategy and how I created this research output over my career, you can take my self-guided online courses at:

→ https://go.lennartnacke.com/chicourse

Email me at linkedin@lennartnacke.com or find me on the following social networks:

• YouTube: @lennartnacke
• BlueSky: @lennartnacke.com
• X: @acagamic
• Instagram: acagamic
• TikTok: @acagamic
• Twitch.tv: acagamic

I also have a newsletter that helps you write better academic papers: https://go.lennartnacke.com/newsletter

Lennart Nacke

In 20 years, I've published 300+ papers (45k+ citations).

None of that came from writing better science.

Most highly cited papers aren’t better written.
 
They’re better structured.

Great papers tell great stories that keep readers hooked.

Here's my academic storytelling framework:

INTRODUCTION
Start with curiosity, not conclusions.

Your introduction should make readers think:
I've never considered that.

• Contrast an intriguing fact to existing work in your field
• Introduce a thought-provoking problem
• Focus on a little-known perspective

This creates immediate engagement.

RELATED WORK
Position your work as the missing piece.

Your related work section isn't a boring literature review.
It's a dinner party where you're introducing the guests.

• Make your work relevant to ongoing debates
• Relate existing research gaps to problems
• Show opposing viewpoints

This builds anticipation for your solution.

METHODS
Make complex methods feel simple.

Nobody wants to decode your methodology, Sheldon.

• Use figures to make complex processes transparent
• What's the benefit of your method over others?
• Explain why your approach is sound

This keeps technical readers engaged.

RESULTS
Lead with your most surprising results. New is good.

Counterintuitive findings grab attention immediately.

• Focus on factual reporting not sensationalism
• Use relatable examples to explain outcomes
• Emphasize unexpected discoveries

This maintains momentum through your findings.

DISCUSSION
Connect your work to the bigger picture of your field.

Your discussion should expand your narrow focus.

• Extend, challenge, or refine our current understanding
• New data, new framework, or better synthesis
• Explain impact on policy, society, or practice

This elevates your research importance.

LIMITATIONS & FUTURE WORK
Frame limitations as opportunities.

Don't apologize for what you couldn't do.

• Suggest specific future research directions
• End with potential valuable implications
• Present constraints as stepping stones

This leaves readers excited about what's next.

Great academic writing isn't just rigid rules.
It's a narrative that pulls readers through your research.
But it has to be original, relevant, & methodologically ok.

Add clear value to your field:

• Open up new areas of investigation
• Confirm crucial findings of others
• Advance knowledge

Great papers aren’t written section by section.
They’re designed as reader journeys.
 
Try this on your next paper:
 
Before submitting, ask one question for every section: 
Why would a smart reader want to keep going?
 
If you can’t answer that clearly, rewrite it.
(Print this cheat sheet as a PDF here: https://lnkd.in/dZXE_kHA)

Research Ops & AI workflows for labs & leaders to ship better papers & grants with less rewriting | Research Chair & HCI Prof @ UWaterloo with 250+ published studies

Medical textbooks got it all wrong.

There's only one type of pain that really hurts.

It's called being a PI.

Most PIs burn out fixing imaginary problems.

They carry their students' imposter syndrome like it's their own.
They wait for 8-hour writing blocks that never come.
They rewrite rejected grants from scratch.

After sitting on dozens of grant panels, I've seen this pattern hit careers hard.

Here's what actually needs fixing.

1. You're Playing Funding Roulette

Most PIs guess where to submit grants.
They pick whatever sounds close enough.
Then they wonder why the proposal gets cut.

Stop guessing.

Pull the CVs of three leaders in your field.
Find the pattern of who funds what.
Trace their funding history.

This is just due diligence.

2. You're Waiting for Summer

Binge writing is a trap.

You tell yourself you'll write during spring break.
Or summer. Or sabbatical.
But those blocks never arrive clean.
(Trust me. I'm on sabbatical. And it's a mess.)

Stop waiting for perfect conditions.

Schedule 90-minute writing sessions.
Treat them like teaching.
Non-negotiable.

3. You're Carrying Your Students' Emotions

Supervision is exhausting because you think you need to fix every jiggle.

A student doubts themselves. You reassure them.
A student lacks direction. You map their next six months.

This doesn't scale. It consumes you.

Set up peer networks instead.
Your job isn't to be their therapist.

It's to build a system where they develop resilience without draining yours.

4. You're Treating Rejection Like Failure

A major revisions decision feels like annihilation.

But it's actually an invitation.

The journal is saying: "We want this paper if you fix these things."

Cooliosis! But many PIs don't see it that way.
They abandon the project.

Here's the fix:

Never respond to a decision letter the same day.
Let it sit for a week. Age it like a whiskey.
Then read the comments as data.

Just data about how a reader experienced your text.
That mental shift is Krispy Kreme for your soul.

5. You're Trying to Build the Perfect Study

No single study can be precise, generalizable, and realistic.

Pick two.

Lab experiments give you precision but sacrifice realism.
Field studies give you context but lose control.
Surveys scale but miss nuance.

Everything is a trade-off.

The fix?

Build a real program.

Run 1 study for precision.
Follow it with another for generalizability.
Address the trade-offs across a 5-year arc.

Reviewers respect PIs who understand limits. They punish PIs who pretend they don't exist.

Most PI pain points aren't rooted in effort. They're rooted in systems.

You're working harder because you don't have:

• A supervision model that doesn't require constant emotional labour
• A research program that acknowledges trade-offs
• A grant targeting strategy

Fix your system.
Get my painkillers here: https://lnkd.in/e4HfhmrH

Drop a 👍 if you've experienced that PI pain.
Save this post for reminder that it's not you 📌

Diagram showing humorous "types of pain": labeled head pain patterns (migraine, hypertension, stress, PhD), a standing "post-doc" figure, and a prone figure with needles labeled PI.

taplio

The Battle

Andy Churchill, phd, mba

Lennart Nacke

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreLennart Nacke's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Andy Churchill, phd, mba

Lennart Nacke

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Lennart Nacke's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreLennart Nacke's LinkedIn Performance