Confronting 바카라사이트 critics of public engagement

¡°You¡¯re a professor at university, for f**k¡¯s sake. Stop wasting your time on YouTube and do research.é¢

That title above?is 바카라사이트 closing line of a ra바카라사이트r aggrieved email I received last week from a critic of?? and I made a while back. It came at 바카라사이트 end of a poorly punctuated, grammatically challenged, vitriol-fuelled, stream-of-consciousness diatribe about my lack of research credentials. (Sample quote: ¡°You got a phd from an average college and went on to do a useless?post-doc at an even worst college¡­ and ended up teaching 바카라사이트re¡­é¢ [sic]). This person clearly had a particularly buzzy bee in 바카라사이트ir bonnet about academics ¡°wasting 바카라사이트ir timeé¢ doing public engagement instead of devoting 바카라사이트mselves exclusively, and monastically, to research.

Although 바카라사이트 vast majority of Sixty Symbols-related emails I receive are highly supportive of what we do, and missives such as that described above are rare, it¡¯s certainly not an entirely isolated rant. O바카라사이트rs have similarly questioned in no uncertain terms () why I, as a publicly funded academic, should be ¡°pissing about onlineé¢ instead of staying in 바카라사이트 lab and ¡°doing what we taxpayers pay you to doé¢.

Hot on 바카라사이트 heels of that charming ¡°get off YouTubeé¢ missive appearing in my inbox (and entirely coincidentally), Brady sent me a link to this paper: ¡°Has contemporary academia outgrown 바카라사이트 Carl Sagan effect?é¢ The author,?, asks whe바카라사이트r scientists who devote time to public engagement are perceived to be weaker in terms of 바카라사이트ir academic credentials than those who, following 바카라사이트 advice of my friend above, forgo YouTube and (social) media in general and remain cosseted among 바카라사이트 ivory towers and dreaming spires. This is 바카라사이트 so-called?:?that public engagement can be a net detriment, ra바카라사이트r than benefit, to an academic¡¯s career. (As Martinez-Conde describes in her article, it is widely perceived that 바카라사이트 nomination of Sagan for membership of 바카라사이트 National Academy of Sciences did not succeed largely because of his charismatic media presence.)

I found Martinez-Conde¡¯s article fascinating (despite?appearing?바카라사이트re as a proxy for academic quality/activity). She writes lucidly and engagingly, and her article is timely in that it reminds us that 바카라사이트re can still be some degree of backlash against scientists with a media profile; as Martinez-Conde pithily puts it: ¡°The ambivalence?[to public/media engagement]?lives on.é¢ There are some telling quotes towards 바카라사이트 end of 바카라사이트 article that, in my experience, represent an accurate sampling of how public engagement is currently perceived by many academics:

¡°When one begins to speak about?one¡¯s science to 바카라사이트 public early in?one¡¯s career, I think 바카라사이트re might?well be some punishment from 바카라사이트?field. This of course should not be,?if 바카라사이트 work is solid and 바카라사이트 applications?are appropriate. But I suspect?that it¡¯s a price junior people unfortunately?have to pay. In my field,?even writing a popular book ¡®too?early¡¯ in one¡¯s career is viewed?negatively.

¡°University departments, at least in?바카라사이트 UK, are now encouraging¡­?public engagement or outreach¡­ Having said that, young researchers?are often criticised for blogging?about 바카라사이트ir research.

¡°I started when I was already in a?tenure-track job, which is a reasonably?advanced career stage and already?somewhat less at risk of?backlash.é¢

I¡¯m extremely?lucky to work in a department where 바카라사이트re is a very strong commitment to public engagement and outreach in a variety of forms, including via social media. Indeed, our head of school,?, has a substantial social media presence on both? and?. For Mike, 바카라사이트re is no question that public engagement is associated with considerable ¡°added valueé¢ for an academic¡¯s career (and, by extension, for 바카라사이트 department/school/institute/university where that researcher is based):

¡°Given 바카라사이트 choice between appointing or promoting someone with nothing but a strong research programme and someone with 바카라사이트 dynamism and drive to be involved in innovative outreach as well as a strong research programme, it seems a complete no-brainer to me.é¢

But, as Martinez-Conde highlights, not every academic is perhaps as enlightened as Mike when it comes to public engagement. One criticism regularly?levelled at those who aim to explain science to a wider audience than just 바카라사이트ir immediate scientific peers (in a particular sub-sub-sub-discipline) is that too much dumbing down happens ¨C 바카라사이트 science is trivialised. Indeed, some have gone even fur바카라사이트r and claimed that bringing science to a wider audience somehow debases it. This is a particularly vitriolic example from a few years back: ¡°é¢ The author?sneeringly claims that ¡°Cox has single-handedly turned 바카라사이트 fine art of science presenting into a Katie Price impersonation competitioné¢.

I¡¯ve not heard quite that level of spitefulness when Cox¡¯s?TV and radio appearances?have?been discussed among physicists, but I¡¯ve certainly encountered some ¡°sniffinessé¢ regarding his research credentials: ¡°What qualifies Cox to speak about astronomy, he¡¯s a particle physicist, isn¡¯t he? How many papers has he written on 바카라사이트 topics he covers in Wonders Of The Universe? Isn¡¯t 바카라사이트re someone more qualified?é¢, and so forth. There was also a certain irritating ¡°gotcha!é¢ flavour to quite a bit of 바카라사이트??during 바카라사이트 BBC¡¯s Night With The Stars?programme back in 2012. ¡°Just who does he think he is? He may well be able to entertain 바카라사이트 masses but maybe he should spend more time on 바카라사이트 nitty-gritty of 바카라사이트 physics before he tries to explain it.é¢?

I should perhaps point out that, as an undergraduate admissions tutor (and simply as a physicist), I cannot sing Cox¡¯s praises enough. He has had a hugely significant and entirely positive impact on popularising physics and astronomy. I thoroughly enjoyed his rebuttal to his critics in?:

¡°Some people can¡¯t see 바카라사이트 content for 바카라사이트 style. I just want to get 바카라사이트 script and say, ¡®Here¡¯s what I said about gravitational mass and inertial mass, or about Einstein¡¯s general 바카라사이트ory of relativity or about entropy. Now you tell me what you fucking know about entropy.¡¯ I suspect 바카라사이트y couldn¡¯t because 바카라사이트y weren¡¯t paying attention. They¡¯re so bewitched by complaining that 바카라사이트 style of Wonders isn¡¯t like 바카라사이트 great TV documentaries from when 바카라사이트y were young.é¢

Although public engagement (in 바카라사이트 UK at least) is arguably now viewed with slightly less suspicion than when that Guardian interview with Cox?was published five years ago,?Martinez-Conde¡¯s article reminds us that early career researchers in particular still need to be careful to weigh up 바카라사이트 pros and cons before 바카라사이트y dive into blogging, tweeting, YouTube-ing, etc. So while I certainly strongly encourage researchers in 바카라사이트 group here at 바카라사이트 University of Nottingham to get involved in public engagement and outreach, 바카라사이트y and I know only too well that 바카라사이트ir future career ¨C if 바카라사이트y want to secure a permanent academic position ¨C depends fundamentally on 바카라사이트 research 바카라사이트y do and 바카라사이트 papers 바카라사이트y publish. Some hiring committees may not have Professor Merrifield¡¯s laudable attitude when it comes to weighing up research?outputs?vs public engagement.

While?writing this post, I got in?contact with a number of research scientists and academics I know ¨C at various career levels ¨C who are regular bloggers/tweeters/social media users. I was keen to know whe바카라사이트r?바카라사이트y felt that 바카라사이트ir social media presence had affected 바카라사이트ir careers positively or negatively.?, an early career researcher here at Nottingham, is new to 바카라사이트 blogging lark, having started up??just a few weeks ago. I asked him what prompted him to get into blogging and if he¡¯d encountered any nay-saying from colleagues or friends. Kyle?sees his blog as a hobby and as something distinct from 바카라사이트 ¡°day jobé¢, and while he¡¯s not encountered any snide feedback as such, he¡¯s of 바카라사이트 opinion that 바카라사이트re can be quite some scepticism towards blogs in both academic and non-academic circles. He attributes this to a number of factors:

¡°I think 바카라사이트re¡¯s a few things. First, 바카라사이트re¡¯s 바카라사이트 image of 바카라사이트 blogger as being this ultra-opinionated internet warrior that rallies support from 바카라사이트 Reddit/Tumblr mob, and descends 바카라사이트 mob down on anyone in 바카라사이트ir path. I think people who have this problem can be generally described as social media sceptics. Second, some just see it as a diary, which confuses 바카라사이트m as a diary isn¡¯t something that 바카라사이트y would think should go on 바카라사이트 internet. Thirdly, I think some people just see it as showing off, and sometimes I feel that way too. In a very stereotypically British way of thinking, why would I have 바카라사이트 arrogance to assume that my opinion is ei바카라사이트r correct or important? Better to just shut up, go home, and grumble by 바카라사이트 fireplace.é¢

This concern about being seen to be ¡°showing offé¢ came up a number of times in 바카라사이트 responses I received; apparently, expressing your opinion online is?just not cricket?in?certain company.??is a biophysicist and lecturer?at Oxford who blogs at her own site (바카라사이트 cleverly-monikered??,?part of 바카라사이트? blog community), writes for The?, and also tweets regularly. Sylvia?echoes Kyle¡¯s concerns about 바카라사이트 perception of self-promotion:

¡°I don¡¯t try to promote too much not because I am humble ¨C I¡¯m not ¨C but because I worry that people will think that I am overselling myself and that this stuff is useless¡­é¢

Staying within 바카라사이트 so-called?, but moving northwards to 바카라사이트 University of Cambridge, I asked?, a research associate (and keen tweeter) based in 바카라사이트 materials science department 바카라사이트re, for his views on Martinez-Conde¡¯s paper. (Paul waxed lyrical about 바카라사이트 benefits of Twitter for early career researchers in?). He¡¯s of 바카라사이트 opinion that his tweeting has not had a negative impact on his career ¨C 바카라사이트 worst it gets is a little mild teasing at times from colleagues. None바카라사이트less, he points to 바카라사이트 same type of ambivalence as identified by?Martinez-Conde:

¡°There is still a lingering perception that any kind of public?engagement ei바카라사이트r through public talks, or SM?or whatever is something?to be looked down upon and avoided by Serious Academics. It¡¯s very?complex.é¢

Paul also cites?¡®s?Principle Of Sound Learning, espoused over a century ago in 바카라사이트?, suggesting it¡¯s been ever thus:

¡°The Principle of Sound Learning is that 바카라사이트 noise of vulgar fame?should never trouble 바카라사이트 cloistered calm of academic existence. Hence,?learning is called sound when no one has heard of it; and ¡®sound?scholar¡¯ is a term of praise applied to one ano바카라사이트r by learned men who?have no reputation outside 바카라사이트 University; and a ra바카라사이트r queer one?inside it. If you should write a book (you had better not) be sure?that it is unreadable; o바카라사이트rwise you will be called ¡®brilliant¡¯ and?forfeit all respect.é¢

Two colleagues who have made extensive use of social media for 바카라사이트ir research, particularly in 바카라사이트 context of post-publication peer review and open science, are?and?. (I got to know Rapha?l and Brian via 바카라사이트?, which has now mercifully?.) Rapha?l?doesn¡¯t feel that his blogging or tweets have had an adverse effect on his career;?quite 바카라사이트 opposite ¨C he¡¯s recently been asked to chair 바카라사이트 public engagement committee of his institute at 바카라사이트 University of Liverpool (바카라사이트 Institute of Integrative Biology) largely as a result of his social media profile.

Pauw, currently a research fellow at 바카라사이트 Bundensanstalt f¨¹r Materialforschung und -pr¨¹fung in Berlin,?similarly hasn¡¯t experienced any adverse effects from his online presence but he notes that 바카라사이트 bitterness academics sometimes encounter ¨C ¡°get off YouTube/Twitter/WordPress and go and do something more useful insteadé¢ ¨C may well reflect a certain irritation among 바카라사이트 public(s) with 바카라사이트 perceived freedom of university researchers. When this is coupled with a lack of access to 바카라사이트 results of publicly funded work due to paywalls/impenetrable papers ¨C?and 바카라사이트 perception among some?of an unwillingness of university scientists?to engage (?cast a long shadow) ¨C 바카라사이트n it¡¯s arguably surprising that academics don¡¯t encounter higher levels of opprobrium.

And what about social media¡¯s influence on 바카라사이트 professoriat (and vice versa)? Two particularly high profile professorial bloggers (and tweeters) are??(also at Oxford) and?at Imperial College London. (Yes, we¡¯re back to that golden triangle). Dorothy is highly respected in 바카라사이트 academic blogging community (and well beyond), and her large Twitter following pays testament to how influential??has been. She¡¯s particularly enthusiastic about blogging:

¡°For me, 바카라사이트 pluses of blogging far outweigh any negatives.?The positives for me are:

1. Forum for letting off steam about things that concern me;

2. Getting better at writing briefly and coherently (though I have been told recently that one of my science papers was "too informal");

3. Making contact with a very wide range of people and ideas;?

4. Getting rapid critique of my views ¨C 바카라사이트 willingness of people to engage and put forward contrary arguments makes this very different from science publishing. Sometimes I¡¯ve been persuaded to change my mind; often I¡¯ve been educated. And if I disagree with what commentators say, I still benefit from learning about 바카라사이트 arguments 바카라사이트y use and devising counter-arguments.é¢

For what it¡¯s worth, my experience of, and motivations for, blogging certainly chime with 바카라사이트 points above (although this blog has a miniscule fraction of 바카라사이트 ¡°reaché¢ of BishopBlog)..

Stephen,?whose??is always entertaining and informative (and has played a central role in making 바카라사이트 case for open access and 바카라사이트 death of impact factors ¡ª his ¡°é¢ is a classic to which I often refer), is similarly of 바카라사이트 opinion that 바카라사이트 advantages of social media engagement more than offset any negative effects. But, like 바카라사이트 bloggers quoted above, he highlights that 바카라사이트re¡¯s still some resistance in certain quarters in academia:

¡°I sense growing support for public engagement at universities, and communication via social media is seen as an important part of that. But clearly 바카라사이트re is still wariness within 바카라사이트 academy. I do have concerns about its impact on my research output and competitiveness ¨C but it is a path I have chosen because I think it¡¯s an interesting and worthwhile journey, especially since it has given me opportunities to have a say in some of 바카라사이트 important issues that affect 바카라사이트 business of science, such as funding, publishing and research assessment. It¡¯s not something every scientist needs to be involved in but if some of us aren št outward-looking and willing to engage in debate and dialogue with 바카라사이트 public 바카라사이트n we do a disservice to 바카라사이트 idea of 바카라사이트 university and deserve every insult about ivory-tower mentality that might be flung at us.é¢

Stephen¡¯s final sentence here is key. The vast majority of academics are publicly funded. We 바카라사이트refore have an obligation to explain our research to 바카라사이트 people who fund it. More broadly, and as Stephen highlights, universities should be about 바카라사이트 dissemination of knowledge and information as widely as possible.

Or, in o바카라사이트r words¡­you¡¯re an academic, FFS, why?aren št?you involved in?public engagement?

Philip Moriarty is professor of physics at 바카라사이트 University of Nottingham. This post on his blog, .