In an age of rapid communication and fast spreading information, scholars are often encouraged - or at times even expected – to share their research beyond traditional academic channels. This can take many forms: blogs, podcasts, social media, news outlets, publishing in open access, or other open formats. Communicating scholarly information to the public helps bridge the gap between specialized knowledge and general understanding, fostering a more informed society, and demonstrating the real-world value of academic work.
Engaging with public audiences can greatly increase the impact of scholarship. Traditional academic publishing is often filled with jargon and complex language that can be difficult for a layperson to understand, and even inaccessible to those without institutional affiliations. Translating and communicating research in more accessible formats and spaces makes scholarship more inclusive and relevant to audiences beyond academia. An informed society is, ultimately, a better society.
However, some universities and academic institutions discourage this kind of public engagement. We’ve seen examples in both Europe and the U.S. of universities implementing strict guidelines about communicating with the public – dictating which topics can be discussed, how they can be presented, and through which outlets.
Such policies are often justified as efforts to maintain “trust in the university”1 or to ensure scholars “clearly distinguish personal opinions from facts.”1 In some cases, institutions even discourage sharing research on social media or outside traditional scholarly publishing. The rationale is that those affiliated with a university are perceived as representing the institution’s values and therefore must act in its best interests.
What do policies like this mean for the future of scholarly communication? Should scholars be discouraged from engaging with the public if it risks reflecting poorly on their institutions? Or do they have a duty to share knowledge as broadly as possible? As academic communication continues to evolve, these questions will shape the boundaries – and the possibilities – of public scholarship.
Further Reading
1. Bell, Marissa, and Neil Lewis. “Universities Claim to Value Community-Engaged Scholarship: So Why Do They Discourage It?” Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England), vol. 32, no. 3, 2023, pp. 304–21, https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625221118779.
2. Bucchi, Massimiano, and Mike S. Schäfer. “Tensions in the Public Communication by Scientists and Scientific Institutions: Sources, Dimensions, and Ways Forward.” Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England), vol. 34, no. 8, 2025, pp. 1107–16, https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625251343507.
0 Comments.