Research communication on 28 AprilDisruptions and discussion welcome

“Let’s develop formats that put disruption and real discussion in the spotlight.”

When you think about research communication, do you immediately think of successful, professionally produced formats? With researchers talking artfully and eloquently about the long, tough road to a breakthrough? In her keynote speech, Julika Griem said that this type of narrative is often the result of a notion of research communication as a “delivery service.” In polished formats such as the TED Talks, the sender wraps up a package and hopes that it reaches the recipient undamaged. The success of the communication is measured by whether or not the “delivery” has been made without a problem. Julika Griem takes a critical view of this because the goal should not be a one-sided performance for an audience but a shared dialog. In her keynote speech, she thus encouraged listeners to consider alternative formats that promote conversation among equals and allow for disturbances, thereby calling at the very outset of the event for critical reflection upon our own understanding and the impact of research communication. The admonition became something of a rallying cry in the subsequent afternoon discussions.

Research communication—career killer?

How do calls for more research communication impact academia and doctoral and early career researchers in the long term? One consequence is that researchers can become more visible, even outside the rigid hierarchies of academia, and they can use research communication to promote their own work. This means that researchers just starting their careers can use research communication to draw attention to their own work. If you take a step back and look at which groups are currently communicating their work a lot and which aren’t, you will nonetheless detect a troubling development, despite the benefits of visibility: while many established professors keep a low profile, young women are especially committed to research communication. What at first seems positive can have far-reaching consequences: whoever spends more time communicating has less time for other research work. Generational and gender inequalities can grow more intense over time. Julika Griem’s gender-sensitive observation was very enlightening, but where does it lead? Should established researchers communicate more or young (female) researchers less? The only reasonable solution seems to be genuine recognition of achievements in the field of research communication. Research communication should not hinder but promote one’s career in academia. This can only happen, however, if we reform the evaluation criteria when offering appointments and granting funding.

Unwieldy steamships, nimble boats—changing evaluation criteria

Research communication cannot remain just a side hustle; it is a must for a successful career in science. And it’s not something that will come about with polite requests, as Stefanie Molthagen-Schöring, who moderated the event and was once a member of #FactoryWisskom, knows. Julika Griem made clear how much work is required to change evaluation criteria and thus recognize research communication: we need to 1) work out overarching criteria for research communication of high quality and 2) find enough well-qualified evaluators for this job. Both of these are Herculean tasks. So it is even more important for flexible funding providers such as foundations to increase the pressure on large, and often slower, organizations.

“Research communication is not an end in itself—it is the means of making things happen.”

Yet the question remains: Who should communicate scientific work and how? Is research communication just another professional box to tick? One important result of the event was making research communication more broadly understood. There are platforms beyond the stage and social media. You can follow your own path, whether facilitating communication between subject areas in an interdisciplinary project or writing a contribution to a blog that targets people outside your own discipline. Moreover, discussion guests advocated for paying attention to one’s own interests while also considering goals. Doctoral and early career researchers especially, they agreed, need to plan their limited time and resources purposefully. One’s own goal, whether introducing research, inspiring public discussion, or simply the joy of communicating, should be clear in all communication projects. To find out which medium or project might suit your own interests or motivation, as Regina Back point out, safe environments like workshops and working groups with colleagues are important.

With this in mind, we hope that the event on research communication provided this kind of environment, with opportunities for trying things out, asking probing questions, and discussing research communication. Thank you to all participants and guests for the exciting exchange and to the Claussen Simon Foundation for their hospitality.

Stay in the loop

Would you like to stay up-to-date with the HRA? Follow us on Twitter and Facebook or sign up for the HRA newsletter!