Conference presentation to ANZCA 2018 on the current ARC Linkage project "Amplifying Public Value", about scholars' engagement and impact through The Conversation.

1. Kim Osman | @kimosman
ANZCA 2018 July 4, 2018
The Engaged Academic
Scholars’ engagement and impact through The Conversation

2. Amplifying Public Value:
Scholarly Contributions’
Impact on Public Debate

3. @qutdmrc
● Including, and beyond altmetrics
● Impact beyond academic and industry circles
● Visibility of scholars in public debate
● Media take-up of research and public presence of scholars
● Social and societal impact of scholarly research
● Take-up in public policy making at all levels of government
Public Value of Research
@qutdmrc

4. @qutdmrc

5. @qutdmrc
● “…comparatively little research has been conducted on how faculty use digital technologies as part
of their work. How are technologies taken up or resisted in academic work?” (Lupton, Mewburn
& Thomson 2018)
● Undertaking qualitative research that elicits rich stories from our interviewees is important to
contextualise the “move towards digital monitoring and quantification has significant implications for
shaping academic work practices and identities.” (Lupton, et al. 2018)
● How do scholars understand impact, and what drives them to engage with the public on issues
related to their research?
● Identifying motivators to contribute to amplifier platforms like The Conversation
● Metrics as “automated processes of persona production” (Marshall, Barbour & Moore 2018)
Who is the engaged academic?
@qutdmrc

6. “Manufacturing a scholarly self has always
been part of the academy, but is now
intensified and more high stake than
before, given the competition for work,
funding and status.”
(Mewburn & Thomson 2018)

7. Contributor Interviews

8. @qutdmrc
1st Round
● The Conversation contributors
● 99 respondents in the annual survey (of 533 author respondents)
● 16 identified as suitable for the pilot round based on reads,
republications, career stage, age, gender, field and university.
● 9 accepted and interviewed
● Noting one participant with low contribution and republishing rates was
chosen based on a high rate of Facebook shares

9. @qutdmrc

10. @qutdmrc
Female Male Non-conforming

11. @qutdmrc
Round 1 Participants
● 4 established scholars
● 3 mid-career
● 2 early career scholars
● 5 women
● 4 men
● Broadly
● 5 Sciences
● 2 Education
● 1 Writing
● 1 Management

12. @qutdmrc
“I think my own scientific writing has benefitted a little bit from it.
Like telling the story, writing something that you know can grab
someone’s attention quickly…. Probably more so for writing grants
I guess. So I’ll tell the story and I’ll compel the panel why they
should be giving me money for my project…”
“I mean I have a real interest in making sure that science is
perceived as fun and interesting and not hard and boring.”
“I see it as a kind of an ethical or political imperative to engage.”
“…here was data that was really important to understand.”

13. @qutdmrc
“But we also are a lot noisier on those platforms you
referred to. The amplifier platforms like Twitter and
Facebook and so forth. As well as very much involved
in websites like The Conversation. … But I was a very
early adopter because I thought it was an excellent
idea to get stuff beyond the classroom but still with
credibility. And I like the freedom that offers.”
“I mean I knew it would be controversial, and I knew it
would upset people.”

14. @qutdmrc
2nd Round
● CRCA participants
● 4 communications professionals
● 3 scholars (non-users)
● A number of issues:
● Commercial considerations
● Scholars located in different institutions
● Competing with university media departments
● Many publics
● Stakeholders, end-users
● Not aware of what The Conversation actually is

15. @qutdmrc
“So our communications focus is very much on stakeholder
communications, student communications. You know, PhDs
and things like that.”
“Well it really depends when things become patented and
licensed and things like that as to when we can actually start
really talking about it.”
“But we do use a bit of social media, but it's not at this point
in time a priority for us, because it just does not align with
what we're trying to do.”

16. @qutdmrc
3rd Round
● Early Career Researchers
● Identified from the annual survey
● 4 this round (+2 from Round 1)
● 3 in research only roles
● 1 runs a consultancy
● Difficulty recruiting teaching academics
● 1 Science
● 2 Health Sciences
● 1 Economics
● The Conversation contributions are valued outside of academia

17. @qutdmrc
“…yeah I think a lot of my colleagues are a lot more senior in
terms of age as well as experience as academics. And a lot of
different opinions about the value of doing this sort of thing.”
“I don't know if people who don't have clinician backgrounds,
whether they feel differently. But it’s really important to be
communicating to the public evidence-based messages.”
“So I actually wrote an article that they recommended in the end
not actually based on my research per se.”

18. @qutdmrc
Key Characteristics of the Engaged Academic
● Belief in the value of evidence-based research for quality public debate
● Not only interested in sharing their own research, but in writing about
and amplifying OTHER quality research.
● Aligns the value of amplifying research on sites like The Conversation
with more than one outcome.
● Recognises being able to tell a good story has impact
● Is highly aware of – and embraces – the controversial
● Reads the comments! AND engages.

19. @qutdmrc
References
Lupton, D. (Ed.), Mewburn, I. (Ed.), Thomson, P. (Ed.). (2018). The Digital Academic. London:
Routledge.
Mewburn, I. & Thomson, P. (2018) Towards an academic self? Blogging during the doctorate in Lupton,
D., Mewburn, I., Thomson, P. (Eds.). (2018). The Digital Academic. London: Routledge.
Marshall, P. D., Barbour, K., & Moore, C. (2018) Academic persona: The construction of online
reputation in the modern academy in Lupton, D., Mewburn, I., Thomson, P. (Eds.). (2018).
The Digital Academic. London: Routledge.

20. Thanks!
kim.osman@qut.edu.au