Construction and Conveyance of Meaning

I was at an academic/social event the other day, and upon being introduced as someone studying "information" and consequently having to explain what I am "interested" in, I had a curious exchange that, I think, is relevant to topics coming up in both Lunt/Livingstone and Luker. While (mostly) blathering endlessly about my varied interests in the history of information architecture, the confluence of information and human-computer interaction, and the materiality of wearable computers, I managed to spark my listener's interest by bringing up something that was... surprise... topical! I had read, earlier that day, that a team of Japanese physicists have managed to create an information heat engine, capable of converting information into energy. Of course, when I tried to explain how this heat engine would work, and what was the relevance to 1) my research interests and 2) the study of information, I immediately stumbled, trying to draw constellations of disconnected ideas together in an attempt to seem as if I knew what I was talking about. I assumed that I kind of did when I brought the topic up, but I am not a physicist, or an information architecture professional, or a nanoengineer.
Anyway, upon later reflection I realized that, instead of making myself (and my research goals) seem interesting, I probably had the opposite effect. Luker referred to synthesizing research and preparing your "material" so that it would be presentable to your smartest, harshest critics and colleagues. Paraphrasing Lunt and Livingstone, "The audience is seen, not as an aggregate of atomized opinions or attitudes, but as individuals located in concrete social groups who construct meaningful social action partly through the discursive interrogation of texts." (Lunt and Livingstone, page 85)
This is, of course, referring to a television audience in a completely different context. But reading this description has prompted me to think about my "audience" and how I convey meaning that I have haphazardly constructed. When I describe my research interests, I get a lot of blank stares. I suppose I need to think about whether this is a result of trying to fuse disjointed ideas and cultures of knowing on my part. I also need to decide whether the "audience" I'm speaking with has ever come across what I'm discussing, and whether it might be relevant to their interests. Finally, I need to situate my presentation - because, make no mistake, that's what this is - in something concrete and tangible. I imagine the latter will come as a result of taking a careful look at how I derive meaning from the themes I am interested in.