Do you think communicating one's research to the public /should/, in itself, be a top 5 priority for most academics? I don't.
Most PhD programs teach students nothing about how to get book deals, do podcasts, give interviews, run a YouTube channel, use social media, or engage with the public in any way. As if getting cited by a hundred colleagues is worth more than reaching a million fellow citizens.
-
-
-
Yes. If we're paid by taxpayers, we owe it to taxpayers to explain what we've found.
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
You're not thinking this through. You don't want thousands of scientists to be vying for audiences of millions, but a few good popularisers to do their thing. On the whole, scientists should talk to their peers and students. It's not about citations, but exposure to criticism.
-
Don't we want thousands of musicians and screenwriters competing for public attention? Isn't competition how we find the best?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Depends on goal of an academic dept. If it’s to maximize scientific advancement, then prob makes sense to incentivize citations over public reach.
-
How do other scientists hear about your papers so they can cite them? Increasingly it's through podcasts, social media, and YouTube.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
More popular than the paper will be.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Do you know of any PhD programs that *do* teach students these things? (Especially in philosophy?) I’ve just figured I’d have to teach myself suck skills.
-
I don't know any in any field.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.