Design Imperative:
Location:
Rosowsky makes the case for “use-inspired” or publicly engaged research that actively connects university knowledge with the needs and priorities of surrounding communities. He highlights practical models, such as land grant extension programs, informal “Science Cafés,” and faculty-led podcasts, that make academic work more accessible and relevant to a wider audience. Rosowsky also critiques current academic reward systems, arguing that universities must recognize and incentivize public communication as seriously as they do grants, publications, and teaching.
Whether you call it use inspired research or publicly engaged research or however you want to frame it, I think the point of, we should be out, you know, speaking with constituents, learning from our community about what their priorities are when we are framing our research, it may not change our research proposal, but it will inform it.
Similarly, as knowledge is being acquired, we should be disseminating that knowledge, which means not just in scientific journals and not just at technical conferences, but figuring out how to communicate that with the people that are funding it. Right. The broader public and the people whose support we are depending on for, for, for continuing our work. And that's not something higher ed writ large, has done particularly well.
So whether you call that use inspired publicly engaged, or publicly shared, research, I think, it's something we've, we haven't done well and I think it will be not the cure for all that ails us right now, but it will be an important first step in both restoring public confidence and in garnering the necessary support from the electorate to continue to fund scientific research and higher education.
I'll fall back to my land grant roots and tell you that at many land grant institutions, extension offices have been doing this for, you know, over a hundred years, and they do it very well. They sit around the kitchen tables and speak with farmers and ranchers and growers and understand what their challenges are.
And then they come back to the university and say, how can we activate the assets of the university to help with particular problems that they've identified? And then they are the technology transfer conda push it back to the practitioners, in this case, the farmers and ranchers and, and the growers. So this is one example I've seen. I've seen examples of science cafes at universities where they will go down to the local watering hole every other Wednesday and pick a particular topic, and they'll socialize that with the broader community.
And, people will come in and enjoy a pint and hear from an expert about something that's happening in her or his laboratory. The Science Cafe model works really well. Then there's the, used to be writing op eds was a good way to get things out there. And they want to hear from the scientists.
They don't want to hear from the university leader or the press office today. It's it's I mean, op eds. Okay. They're fine. But if you look at what particularly, early career investigators are doing, they're, they're they're running podcasts and webinars and, and, and illustrating children's books and, you know, just releasing their not just the knowledge that they've, they've uncovered or created, but the, the pathway of acquiring that knowledge.
They're releasing it. To everybody. And in many ways that's probably going to be more effective. And then scientific communication to our internal audiences. And, and that's [why] I came back to that tenure point I made earlier. Tenure still looks at, you know, how effective are you in the classroom? Critically important. And then how much money have you garnered for your scholarship and your research?
And how many graduate students have you advised, through to completion? And how many papers have you published in peer reviewed journals? And all of these made sense 100 years ago. And all of these made sense 50 years ago, and they still make sense today. But they're necessary, but not sufficient. And if you look at all of these other, many isms and vehicles for information transfer that faculty are using now that have nothing to do with peer reviewed journals, they're not tracked or counted in any way toward promotion.
So we've got to get serious about this. If we really want to engage the public, communicate with the public, bring the public into our discovery and, and have them get on board with why you're hiring. And research is important. And we talk to them, you know, on podcast and, and we have science cafes and, you know, whatever the case may be, then that stuff has to count because faculty are busy people and they're being told, get that research grant, publish that paper, complete that doctoral student, and don't get bad teaching evaluations.
All good advice, but only a fraction of what we need them to do.