Why Do Faculty Resist Research Communication? Understanding and Addressing the Complex Barriers

Universities are feeling the pressure to lower down the ivory tower walls and build stronger connections with their communities. This push for greater engagement includes finding better ways to share the valuable research happening on campus with the broader world. But even as universities emphasize public outreach, many research faculty aren't exactly jumping at the chance to communicate their work beyond their required tasks (e.g., publishing, presenting).

And who can blame them?

The reasons faculty hold back aren't as simple as just being reluctant. There's a whole maze of institutional, cultural, and practical hurdles they need to navigate. Understanding these barriers is crucial if we want to make meaningful progress in connecting academic research with the public.

Understanding the Motivation Challenge

Research on why faculty choose (or choose not) to share their work with broader audiences reveals it's complex, to say the least. As Colbeck & Weaver (2008) found, a faculty member's willingness to communicate their research publicly depends on several interacting factors: personal career goals, how confident they feel about their communication abilities, whether they believe their institution truly supports this work, and their emotional experiences with public engagement. This tells us that simply offering incentives isn't enough to get faculty into research communication (although, it can help!??).

The Multifaceted Barriers

Time is not a renewable resource. It is also one of the primary obstacle when it comes to research communication. Research faculty have demanding schedules filled with teaching responsibilities, research commitments, administrative duties, service obligations, and lives to live. Within this packed schedule, research communication can feel like yet another burden competing for limited time and energy (Calice et al. 2022). This pressure is particularly acute for early-career faculty working toward tenure and who are also trying to get their sea legs under them.

Then there is tenure and promotion. Traditional academic metrics emphasize peer-reviewed publications and grants while overlooking/undervaluing research communication efforts (King & Rivett 2015). The misalignment between institutional incentives and communication activities makes it an awkward and challenging environment for tenure-track faculty, who have to carefully prioritize and balance activities that will advance their careers.

Lastly, many faculty lack formal training in research communication and feel ill-equipped to translate complex academic work for general audiences (Knobel & Reisberg 2022). This skills gap does not mix well with the present concerns about potential risks to professional reputation. Faculty worry about media misrepresentation of their work, criticism from colleagues who may view communication activities as less scholarly, or negative impacts on their academic credibility (Koivumaki & Wilkinson 2020).

The Role of Institutional Support

Research faculty members' beliefs about institutional support can significantly impact their willingness to engage in public scholarship (Colbeck & Weaver, 2008). Even highly motivated faculty may hesitate if they perceive their department or university as unsupportive. This suggests that creating an enabling environment for research communication is just as important as providing individual incentives.

Creating Supportive Environments

Higher education leaders at all levels can take several steps to create environments that encourage and support research communication:

Reimagine Evaluation Systems

• Integrate communication and public engagement metrics into tenure and promotion criteria
• Develop new frameworks for recognizing public impact beyond traditional academic outputs
• Create clear guidelines for how communication activities will be valued in faculty reviews

(Calice et al. 2022)

Build Capacity and Resources

• Provide research communication training programs for faculty and graduate students
• Ensure meaningful access to professional communication support staff
• Allocate funding to support public engagement and research communication initiatives

(Knobel & Reisberg 2022)

Foster Cultural Shift

• Celebrate and showcase successful research communication efforts
• Create communities of practice around research communication
• Facilitate partnerships and collaboration between researchers and communication professionals

(Entradas et al. 2023)

Support Time Management

• Include equitable communication activities in workload models
• Reduce administrative barriers to engagement and research communication
• Consider course releases for research projects that involve significant research communication
• Protect time for public engagement and research communication activities

(Calice et al. 2022)

The Future of Faculty Engagement

There's reason for optimism though. We're seeing a cultural shift in academia, largely driven by early-career scholars who value of connecting with broader audiences (Calice et al. 2022). And research faculty who successfully integrate research communication into their work find it deeply rewarding and integral to their academic identity (Colbeck & Weaver, 2008).

This is where higher education leaders play a crucial role in supporting and accelerating this cultural shift. The focus shouldn't be just about removing institutional barriers, although that's definitely important. It's about actively creating environments where research faculty feel supported and empowered to share their work more broadly. Success requires understanding those motivational factors discussed earlier and tackling both the practical and cultural obstacles that hold research faculty back.

By taking a comprehensive approach to supporting faculty research communication, institutions can help bridge the gap between academic knowledge and public understanding, ultimately fulfilling universities' broader mission of contributing to societal well-being.