It’s ‘Everywhere and Nowhere’ — Social Science Research in the Public Sphere
The Ivory Tower trope is familiar to all of us working in Higher Education. The idea that academics sit in their offices, squirrelling away to produce obscure papers never to be seen by anyone outside of the academy, has been a hard one to shift in public consciousness. Many, of course, try. Reams of academics are working hard to not only communicate the findings of their research to a wider public, but are also targeting policy-makers to bring about societal changes. The criticism can be particularly strongly felt in the humanities and social sciences, where disciplines are arguably less well valued within discourses around the value of research and education in a market-driven economy. Academics are facing an up-hill battle to get their research into the public sphere, and to get the worth of their disciplines recognised.
So, are there particular differences in the communication of humanities and social science topics to those in the natural sciences? Often, they are discussed as being more difficult to engage with the public than the natural sciences. Whereas the sciences are seen to be more easily conveyed in visual and engaging ways at public outreach events, many social scientists struggle to do so in the same ways. They’re also not afforded the same attention in the media, with most international media having a specialist science output, such as science sections in newspapers or radio and TV programmes dedicated to science. Science journalism is a respected specialism in itself, whereas, although much of the more generalist news is related to social sciences topics, such as the economy, Brexit, equality, racism, identity politics etc., it does not necessarily emerge directly from the publication of research findings themselves.
Social Science Researchers as Public Commentators
In my previous blog, I discussed whether ‘open research’, pursued by making academic outputs freely accessible, leads to ‘impactful research’. I argued that what is required to maximise the impact of research is a focus on the development and dissemination of varied forms of communication, through working with stakeholders and end-users of research findings from early on in the research planning process, to ensure usable and useful outputs are produced.
Here, I’d like to build on these discussions, following the contributions of others working directly with the impact agenda, and those in related roles across higher education, to explore this additional pressure on academics to communicate their research. As a Knowledge Exchange and Impact Officer in the School of Social Sciences at the University of Manchester, I often work with academics on the formulation of their impact plans. Whilst I greatly believe that we should be working in this way to promote the uptake and impact of social science research, I think there are particular challenges felt by social science researchers to become public commentators themselves, which pushes their professional (and personal) profiles to become more public and often sits in conflict with the other pressures on their time and working practices. Most notably, these can be felt around the prioritisation of researchers time to producing high quality academic outputs of national and international ‘excellence’.
Changes in research practices
Alongside pressure across social media and from commentators arguing for academics across disciplinary areas to become more visible in communicating their work, there have been two major shifts in higher education policy over the last couple of decades. Both of which have arguably led to changes in research practices:
1. The impact agenda — UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) defines impact as ‘the demonstrable contribution that excellent research makes to society and the economy’. Within all UKRI grant applications is a requirement to outline who the potential non-academic beneficiaries of the research are, and a ‘pathways to impact’ statement, detailing the steps they will take to maximise this impact. Impact case studies are also required as part of a Higher Education Institution’s (HEI) REF2021 submission, making up 25% of the total grading. This has risen from 20% in REF2014.
2. Open Access Publishing — Governments and research funding bodies have encouraged a move towards open access, which promotes making research outputs freely accessible. REF2021 policy states that most academic outputs should made available in an open access format to be eligible (this currently excludes monographs, as the publishing industry in this case is not viewed to currently support it).
Central to the development of pathways to impact is an endeavour to produce research with real-world impact. This can be through early engagement with stakeholders and end-users of the research, through co-production or development of open and usable outputs, and through the effective communication of research findings to specialist or more generalists groups. Here, I’d like to focus on this final point, communicating the findings of research to increase public awareness of particular issues, and of the contribution that research is making to public and policy debate.
Accessible scholarly communications
Raising public awareness of specific issues through effective communication strategies is often difficult to plan for and then evaluate and evidence when (and if) it does happen. As a Knowledge Exchange and Impact Officer, I often see vague plans for communicating research to the public within researchers’ grant applications. Statements around plans to ‘communicate findings to the general public’, ‘make findings available on a project website’ or ‘do media interviews’ abound. How can we actually support academics to effectively identify and target their audiences, and produce varied research outputs when there are so many other pressures on their time?
This issue has been touched upon already by others working directly with the impact agenda in supporting academics. Within the context of open access publishing, as recognised by my colleague, Carly Chadwick, in 2017, ‘aside from the lack of availability of academic research articles, another barrier faced by non-academics in making use of research findings is the format of scholarly communication’. This is clearly a major issue, and not one that current open access policies alone can resolve. When reading through OKHE1 contributions from a wider range of commentators, I have also been struck by what a shift in the expectations of academics to broaden their communication skills means for those being pressured to develop their skills in this way.
Pushing researchers into the public sphere
One colleague, who works in the development of open educational resources at the University library, commented on the push to share teaching resources and the effect this level of visibility might have on lecturers. They referred to ‘imposter syndrome’ and the potential sense of uneasiness due to exposure which might befall those who share the resources they themselves have created. Another colleague working as a lecturer in Politics at the University, reflected on the immense pressure to produce scholarly outputs, alongside a myriad of other responsibilities, so that taking time to effectively translate or communicate these findings in an accessible form for lay readers, may not be high on their list of priorities, or even possible at all. Interestingly, they also commented on the often introverted nature of academics and analogised that ‘asking a shy mathematician who spends her days writing equations to bring her knowledge to the outside world, and in digestible form, might be akin to asking David Beckham to give a university lecture on the technique of crosses from the right-wing’.
Further to the pressures on time and the fact that open communication beyond the academy may bring about particular difficulties and anxieties, pushing academics further into the public sphere also makes them much more open to criticism and vitriol on social media. Andy Tattersall, in his blog post stating tips for how to deal with the dark side of social media, highlights certain topics which can often be bigger targets for online abuse, many of which fall within the social sciences — politics, feminism, environmental research, sociology etc. Communicating research in an accessible way to varied audiences is therefore not easy, and perhaps is even more difficult for those working in social science disciplines, where they are perhaps more likely to be the direct commentator themselves, as opposed to their work being translated by others.
Difficulties in social science communication
The challenges for the communication of social science to wider publics can therefore be summarised as follows:
1. There are incredible pressures on academics to publish scholarly outputs, alongside other pressures on their time around teaching and admin responsibilities. Finding the time and will to produce other accessible outputs may not be possible.
2. In creating a public profile, academics are more open to wider criticism and abuse.
3. Social science topics are often bigger targets or more susceptible to online trolling.
4. Social science is broadly visible across news media, though is not seen to be a specialist area within journalism. There are therefore bigger potential crossovers between the work of journalists and social scientists, creating tension.
It’s ‘everywhere and nowhere’
Angela Cassidy at the University of Exeter, has explored these challenges around communicating social sciences research. She states that there is a lack of research in itself around the area, in contrast to the natural sciences and scholarly communication, and reflects on the different relationship between journalists and the natural sciences to the social sciences. Quoting psychologists McCall and Stocking (1982), Cassidy states that,
Everyone, including journalists and editors, fancies himself or herself something of a psychologist, but not an astrophysicist. Results from psychology, but not physics, must therefore square with experience to be credible.
There are apparent overlaps between the work of social scientists and journalists leading news media audiences to view little difference between the two. This leads to journalists covering social science topics without specialist training, but also, and ironically, increasing the chances of social science research being reported, as it makes up a chunk of generalist news and appeals across society. Cassidy also remarks that social scientists take on a range of roles unavailable to natural scientists, being called upon to speak for expert positions in the aftermath of particular news events, and can therefore often be more active in popular communications than their science colleagues, whose research may be more readily reported by specialist journalists. She concludes,
One thing seems clear: social science and humanities research appears to be both ‘everywhere and nowhere’ in public communication. Social sciences have a lower status than natural sciences, are less likely to prompt original news coverage via their findings, do not merit media or journalistic specialisation, and at times are seen as little different from journalism itself. At the same time, social science topics constantly generate new coverage, are seen as relevant to audiences, easy to understand, and appear throughout the media rather than being confined to an area of special interest.
It seems then that there is a unique tension between journalism and the social sciences — with social science topics constantly generating news coverage but this coverage being less likely to result directly from original findings. There is therefore a pressure on social scientists, not only to communicate their work in a range of formats, but also to be proactive in creating a public profile for themselves, through which the findings of their work can be directly communicated.
Parity and recognition
Are we then asking social scientists to develop skills in journalism, alongside their subject area expertise, teaching experience and various other research –related specialisms? If social science roles are developing to become important as public commentators and advisers, how can we begin to effectively support them? This brings me back to Nick Turnbull’s reflections on the pressures placed on academics. In my role, I am in a position to work with academics and the wider professional services networks at the University to develop and support their skills in communication and media engagement, but is doing so in the current higher education policy landscape sustainable?
Clearly, there are conflicts around the development of communication skills in academia in making research more open, accessible and, crucially, impactful. Whilst we can start to address some of the challenges outlined above by introducing new training programmes and systems of support, I would argue that what is really required are further developments much higher up at the national and institutional policy levels. Only if we can begin to see more parity between the expectations on researchers to produce academic outputs of excellence, with those to maximise the real-world impact of their research, can we begin to effectively resolve these issues. What’s needed in this new landscape, above all else, is appropriate recognition.
