Engagement is existential. So why don’t universities seem invested?

According to the OECD, engagement is a critical driver of trust. So why aren’t universities properly engaging the public?

In my previous newsletters, I explored topics like research impact, the pitfalls of relying solely on metrics, and the publisher’s perspective on audience engagement. In this edition, I want to delve deeper into why communicating research impact is not just important but crucial—and examine some of the recurring challenges that hold universities back from doing so effectively or too often, at all.

Trust in institutions is declining — universities are not exempt

This is an era of upheaval, polarisation, and declining trust in institutions. It’s painful to watch. A 2024 OECD survey on trust in public institutions captures the situation succinctly: “Democratic governments today stand at a critical juncture, steering environmental and digital transitions while facing increased polarisation within their countries, heightened geopolitical tensions as well as the social consequences of economic developments. In this environment, building and maintaining trust in public institutions is a priority for many governments around the world.”

Whether public or private, universities and higher education aren’t exempt from these trends. In the U.S., we are seeing this playing out with the scientific community facing significant funding cuts, including a cap on NIH indirect cost rates and a freeze on NSF grants, jeopardising essential research and public health initiatives. These changes have sparked lawsuits, fears of program closures, and concerns over America’s diminishing global leadership in science and technology.

Cynical politicking aside, the Trump administration is capitalising on a very real cultural trend, and one that’s been around for decades: the concept of the university as a disconnected intellectual ivory tower.

This trend of distrust is often framed as part of wider trends around anti-science and anti-intellectualism. Of course, research itself and the institutions in which research takes place are very closely linked. But they are not the same thing. I have found a clear divergence in how science is spoken about and how universities are spoken about.

Trust in science is (relatively) good, but trust in universities is not.

Indeed, whether or not there’s broadening mistrust in science is a debate in itself. An enormous study in Nature on trust in scientists and their role in society, published in Jan 2024, argued that the idea of growing mistrust in science is inaccurate – they found that most countries have high levels of trust and no country had low levels of trust.

But other reports aren’t as optimistic – surveying the U.S., Pew Report in 2023 found that although trust in science is rebounding, it’s still down from the pandemic.

However, I noticed that most of these reports are referring to science, scientists and government. Reading through many of them, universities and research institutions are invisible. Research appears to be something commissioned – or not – by government, and executed by scientists.

One exception was in this statement by the UN’s Scientific Advisory Board on trust in science, released September 2024: “A central challenge [...] is the growing mistrust in science, its practitioners, and its institutions. In recent years, that mistrust has been fueled by a widespread perception that scientists and their institutions within the “elite establishment” may be out of touch and at times used for political purposes rather than for the public good.”

This report is one of the few I’ve seen that specifically separates science, practitioners and institutions (while acknowledging their intrinsic interconnection). It’s a more nuanced diagnosis that I agree with.

Again, I don’t want to lay all the blame for mistrust at the feet of the research community. They’re not the only institutions experiencing this – and there are numerous and complex drivers, causes and agents, some of whom stand to gain immensely from creating distrust in research and research institutions, particularly now.

Engagement is critical for trust

The OECD report I referenced earlier has an important insight that can help. “In today’s complex information environment, with the rise of disinformation and polarising content, how information is created, shared and consumed is closely tied with trust.”

Notably, two of its four recommendations to help governments build trust are around engagement and communication. They are:

• Engage better with citizens; and
• Support a healthy information ecosystem and invest in evidence-based communication

Yet universities as a whole have failed to do either of these things. This may be a bitter pill to swallow but the university sector is responsible for the perception that universities have no real-world impact or ability to operate in the real world – for example, the idea that researchers don’t know how to partner effectively with industry.

These ideas, of course, aren’t true. My firm STEM Matters has worked extensively with academics and universities over the years – helping them to better communicate their research impact to build profile and influence, and to generate revenue. We have worked with over 80 clients, including some of Australia’s most prestigious universities, on communications strategies, brand narratives, research impact audits and more. In the course of this work, I have seen first-hand how their work has contributed to making the world a better place.

Yet when I ask my friends “on the outside” whether research and universities have improved their lives, the answer is always the same: most can’t point to a single thing, even from their own alma mater. They haven’t been given the language. And that gap is where the story of the Ivory Tower grows instead. If you don’t tell your story, someone else will tell it for you – to their own benefit.

As part of STEM Matters’ work, I’ve looked at hundreds of university websites. Navigating their impact is almost difficult, even as an experienced science publisher. I’d extend this criticism to the broader STEM sector particularly research institutes, and government websites — there’s a fundamental disconnect between what they do and their impact, vs what they actually communicate. Too often, incredible impact is completely invisible. As I asked universities in my first newsletter: are you featuring more buildings than breakthroughs on your website?

The fact is that the research community is suffering because of this perception of out-of-touch elitism. It wouldn’t be as easy to position universities as ivory towers, and use that as an excuse to strip funding or otherwise reduce support, if this narrative didn’t already exist. Perception is reality.

Lost opportunities = lost trust

If you want your research to benefit society, you need society to value your research. Effective communication will connect your audiences with that value. It will create trust, which is integral to creating societal acceptance and support. This, in turn, will amplify the real-world application of research. The benefits of building trust are numerous: public support and goodwill; greater profile and influence with key audiences like industry partners; and increased funding and revenue.

On the flip side, if society doesn’t see the relevance or value of research, its potential impact diminishes. The social capital is lost. If people cannot find or understand your impact, how do you justify funding? How do you argue for more investment? How do you build trust and confidence with the community? How do you convince alumni to donate when they know little about your work beyond their degree? How do you attract more philanthropy? How do you attract young people to study fields where there is little understanding of global impact? How many times can politicians cut research funding and diss universities without a significant public backlash? How much disinformation is leaking through the void of excellence in communication?

Put a dollar figure against those lost opportunities. Investing in proper research impact turns from being a PR exercise to a strategic imperative.

Yet over and over I see the same thing: a lack of strategic intent. Engaging audiences with research isn’t understood, valued or funded at the highest levels within the STEM sector. Most of these lost opportunities can be traced back to this lack of strategic intent.

But on the flip side, it means that – with the right strategic investment in effective communications – it becomes much easier to create social capital for your institution and researchers, to become a trusted figure, and to significantly increase funding and influence as a result. I have seen it first-hand with my clients. It’s not easy, but it is doable.

In future editions, we’ll unpack this even more. See you next time!

Kylie

The STEM Matters Newsletter is published by STEM Matters - a global strategic advisory and communications agency that helps science, technology, and research-based organisations build profile, generate influence and increase funding.

Our clients are trying to change the world – and we’re here to help.

We offer a range of strategic, communications and content services. From developing organisational and funding strategies to crafting capability statements, impact case studies, presentations, pitch messaging, and compelling stories, we empower our clients to effectively communicate their unique value – and get results.

Get in touch with me at [email protected] or schedule a time in calendly and let’s talk about how we can help you.