Openness, Engagement and Academic Identity

In my previous post I discussed open knowledge in relation to research impact. I considered the difference between openness and accessibility, and the fact that having an impact outside of academia often requires an extra step beyond publishing in academic journals: translating research into a format that is accessible to research users. This can involve producing non-academic outputs such as policy briefings or research reports, blogging, engaging on social media, and attending meetings or hosting workshops to talk to research users. Being open in this way can yield benefits for research users and academics themselves. The researchers I work with want their research to make a difference and are willing to invest time and effort to share knowledge openly and to make change happen. But what are the implications of this for researchers, and is openness changing what it means to be an academic?

The humanities appear to be coming under increasing pressure to justify their existence. Conversations with academic colleagues as part of my role have revealed that academics working in the humanities sometimes find it difficult to relate to the so-called ‘impact agenda’. The inclusion of Pathways to Impact statements in grant applications, and the introduction of impact case studies to the Research Excellence Framework (REF), has placed increasing pressure on Universities and individual academics to demonstrate the economic and social benefits of academic research. The problem is that the definition of impact that was used in REF 2014 was interpreted rather narrowly, which seems to have led some humanities researchers to the conclusion that there is a focus on socio-economic or technological impact, rather than cultural impact, or impacts on public understanding. This is, perhaps, hardly surprising, given the language used in policy documents such as the recently published Industrial Strategy green paper, which repeatedly emphasises the contribution of Universities to innovation but does not mention the humanities. In 2015 Gretchen Busl posited that one way to increase the visibility of humanities research is for researchers to engage more with non-academic audiences, using alternative means to scholarly articles:

“The inward-focused nature of scholarship has left the public with no choice but to respond to our work with indifference and even disdain, because we have made little effort to demonstrate what purpose our work may have beyond the lecture hall or academic journal.”

There does seem to be a drive for academics to “come down from their ivory towers” and engage the public and other audiences more with research. For instance, the University of Manchester recently published its strategy for public engagement, outlining how the University aims to embed public engagement activity into its work. This includes inspiring, informing and educating the public, involving users in research and working in partnership with the public to solve problems together. Clearly, this will require much more than simply publishing in open access journals, and will have implications for academics’ time and University resources.

It’s for this reason that Philippa’s post on research engagement and openness resonated with me. Philippa discusses a programme of engagement at the Research Institute in which she works, and the need to select groups with whom to engage, thereby excluding others and resulting in events that are not “truly open”. There is a need to balance time and resources with complete openness; as Philippa points out, hosting engagement events is time consuming and costs money. However, there are solutions to the issue of potential exclusion. By making other resources available outside engagement events, research findings can be accessed by a wider group of research users. This also illustrates the extra steps required to engage non-academic audiences and to maximise research impact, beyond publishing academic articles.

In contrast, Mulholland urges academics to “forget about public engagement”, arguing that whilst academics are faced with explaining the relevance of their work to the public, they cannot predict how their research might be useful in the future. I agree that “popularising research isn’t the only way to make a social impact”. However, I think the assertion that “those who call for academics to publicise their work often place importance on making complex research more accessible to general audiences” slightly misses the point. I do not think it would be productive for all academic research to necessarily be communicated to “general audiences”. In order for it to have an impact, research needs to be communicated to relevant audiences (who might well be specialists, but not academics) in a way that is accessible to them. This means, often, a format that they are able to access and that they have the time to make use of.

For example, Talbot and Talbot conducted a survey of senior civil servants’ view on their access to, and use of, academic research. Preferred methods of accessing academic research were briefings or research reports, and media reports of academic work in newspapers. The findings indicated that as a first point of contact with academic research, civil servants find it more useful to access more broad academic knowledge and expertise, backed up by specific references, rather than an in-depth discussion of a particular research subject that academic articles often provide. Civil servants also indicated that they required more open access material. These findings, again, highlight the extra steps required to translate the more traditional academic outputs into resources that are useful to non-academic stakeholders, as well as the benefits of making non-academic outputs openly available.

In a similar survey, Hughes and colleagues investigated how academics engage with external audiences. The results revealed a variety of engagement methods beyond academic publishing, including sitting on advisory boards, developing public exhibitions, offering training workshops and working with schools. Although academics see this as part of their role (more than half of the 18,177 respondents described their research as ‘primarily motivated by considerations of use’), they also cited a lack of time and resources as barriers to engagement. This is not surprising, considering the other elements of academic roles (teaching, publishing, writing grant applications, and administration) that place demands on academics’ time, and the time and effort required to realise impact from research. Hamlyn and colleagues also found that competing pressures on academics’ time prevented them from engaging with the public. Whilst 52% of respondents working in the arts, humanities and social sciences regarded public engagement as an important aspect of their role, and were also positive about the benefits of engagement (50% of respondents felt that the public could add value to their research, and 82% agreed their research has implications for society), they again cited a lack of time and resources as barriers to engagement.

I’m reminded here of Paul’s post on academic prestige and the need to publish in high quality journals. Paul points out that a major barrier to open knowledge is the fact that “our success is judged on the perceived quality of research journals”. Publications are still the benchmark of academic (research) success, despite the drive for researchers to engage more openly with non-academic audiences. In my day-to-day role I’ve become acutely aware of competing pressures on academic colleagues’ time, and throwing in openness and research impact adds another task to an ever-increasing list. This is especially the case because creating research impact is so time consuming, and that time is not often recognised in work allocation models or promotions criteria. For early career researchers especially, it can be difficult to know where to focus.

Further, some academics are concerned that engaging on social media takes time away from research, which might be detrimental to the quality of research. I’m inclined to disagree with this, as social media can be a very useful tool to reach non-academic audiences and communicate about research in an open and accessible way. As with all forms of communication, it’s important to think about whether social media is an appropriate way to reach the intended target audience, and what the aims of communicating with them are. However, as others have argued, the benefits of being open online in this way are worth the time and effort, and can include building relationships with research users and the media, as well as other researchers. Academics use social media to find collaborators, share content, and as a tool for developing ideas.

So, what does all of this mean for academic identity?

According to Sophie Duncan, deputy director of the National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement (NCCPE), “engagement used to be seen as the kind of thing people did when they weren’t good at research”. Some researchers still do not see engagement as a serious component of academic life. A recent Academics Anonymous article criticising researchers’ use of social media is an example of this. Engagement can be seen as a lowly activity that is beneath “serious academics”, who should instead focus more on their contribution to scholarly discourse and less on their online presence. I disagree with this, and was heartened by the resulting backlash in various subsequent blog posts by researchers highlighting the benefits of engagement and, indeed, the fact that sharing knowledge actually makes you a better researcher.

Being open also requires researchers to ‘put themselves out there’ and be willing to enter into public debate. As Jenny points out, openness comes with a certain degree of vulnerability, and requires an acceptance that there is no shame in not having all the answers. It can also come with a degree of reputational risk. However, as Hughes and colleagues and Hamlyn and colleagues discovered, this is a challenge that many academics feel is worthwhile to take on, and researchers often enjoy engaging with non-academic audiences. Some even feel a moral obligation to engage outside academia, and feel that their purpose is to contribute to society. Given that research funds are paid from the public purse, some also feel a sense of accountability; that the public deserves to know how these funds are spent and what the outcomes of academic research are.

Taking on the challenge of being more open requires a different set of skills to those that might be expected of a traditional academic. It requires an ability to communicate with different audiences in a way that’s accessible and can be understood, and an ability to explain complex ideas and concepts to non-specialists. As well as potentially changing what it means to be an academic — a shift from an individual scholar to a public intellectual — this places demands on Universities to support researchers and assist them in developing the skills required to successfully engage. Studies of academics’ attitudes to external engagement have found that some researchers feel they lack the skills to interact with external audiences, and that a lack of training in public engagement leads researchers to feel that they are unequipped to take part in public engagement activities. Universities have invested in professional support for impact and engagement; this may be due in part to the inclusion of impact assessment in the REF, and the subsequent requirement for institutions to be more accountable and for academics to be more visible.

As I touched on in my previous post, the REF policy on open access is a good first step to encouraging openness, and it is positive that there is a drive to make the findings of research publicly available. However, I am still of the opinion that it does not go far enough. To be eligible for the next REF (which is likely to be held in 2021), academic outputs must be made available in institutional repositories. My feeling is that this content is still difficult for research users to find, and does not communicate research in a way that is easy to use and understand. So, extra steps are needed for research findings to reach relevant audiences. One criticism levelled at the assessment of impact in REF 2104 is that it did not take into account the “academic expertise and luck” required for academic research to have an impact. In other words, the REF 2014 impact assessment missed the point slightly. It seems to me that the REF 2021 open access requirement may have done the same. Nonetheless, it represents a step in the right direction towards quite a sizeable culture change in higher education. Like it or loathe it (and most seem to loathe it) some are of the opinion that REF does actually (eventually) change behaviour in HE. For instance, Jonathan Wolff describes three areas in which he regards the assessment of research via the REF and its predecessors to have had a positive impact on HE practice:

“Meritocratic hiring, vibrant research environments, impactful research, and open-access publishing must be good things. Probably none of them would have developed to the degree they have without the formal assessment of research.”

All things considered, open knowledge can improve research quality and accelerate the impact of academic research, helping to bring about the change that so many of my academic colleagues aim for. As academia continues its digital transformation, openness is likely to become more a part of academic life than ever. And, as Maxine Mackintosh quite rightly points out, “knowledge is useless unless shared and disseminated”. Universities should therefore recognise the time and effort it takes for researchers to be open and for research impact to be realised. They should support researchers to develop the necessary skills to share their knowledge outside academia. This will help to ensure that academic research reaches those who can use it, so that it really does make a difference.