Getting out of the ivory tower

UK universities (HEIs) have long played central roles in public discourse by fostering world class academic research, addressing complex challenges, and driving socioeconomic innovation and development. However, in an increasingly polarised society that “has had enough of experts”, HEIs are cast as ‘intellectual elites’ living detached from the ‘real world’. 

Multiple factors have constructed this proverbial ‘ivory tower’ but HEIs neglecting effective communication strategies that translate complex, inaccessible research for new, broader audiences is central. Despite occupying a credible position, surveys suggest that HEIs are seen as increasingly unimportant and undeserving of funding. 

Researchers must escape the ivory tower by proactively leveraging narrative and storytelling to ensure their work reaches its transformative potential to motivate public opinion. 

Making impact in the “battleground of opinion” 

HEIs are uniquely positioned to provide creative solutions to the myriad issues facing society and achieve “demonstrable contribution that excellent research makes to society and the economy” as the Economic and Social Research Council defines impact. However, the virtuous aims contained in extensive mission statements and initiatives like ‘open access’ papers are pointless if effective knowledge communication strategies are neglected. 

In this “battleground of opinion”, hard facts must be coupled with compelling stories to be of relevance and as conflict between science and emotion increases; there is little point to research that is indecipherable to the public. 

There is ever-increasing competition for attention as digital media explodes and the barrier to entry drops. Anyone can self-publish their thoughts; opinion packaged as fact. We can all recount examples of viral pandemic-era posters that ‘did their own research’ and achieve tremendous engagement, with no requirement to adhere to traditional conventions, including the requirement to evidence their claims. 

Powerful, evidenced narratives can combat these individuals, but researchers must not lower themselves to evidence-free claims or deliberate provocation. Instead ‘cut through’ can be achieved via collaborative approaches that combine world class research with distilled, emotive stories. Researchers must come armed with both facts and opinion.  

The power of stories 

Though many sectors see it as synonymous with education, the necessity to share powerful stories is often overlooked by HEIs, either through ignorance of its utility, lack of confidence in deploying methods, or reluctance to ‘reduce’ education to using communication strategies.  

Psychologist Jerome Bruner estimates that facts are 20 times more likely to be remembered if presented within a story. We can all relate to this. It is why the BBC describes Planet Earth as “bringing you compelling stories” – we are more likely to become motivated conservationists after hearing and watching stories of threatened animals and peoples than when just presented worrying statistics.  

Academics are trained to design work to meticulously detailed standards. Though inaccessible to non-academic audiences, I do not propose changing this. I propose academics change how they see their role when translating and sharing this research. Considering themselves storytellers and part of the societal story, asking themselves “what makes a good story?” will necessitate empathy with wider audiences – the first step to engaging them. 

Consider also misinformative ‘self-publishers’ that leverage the contagious nature of powerful stories. Miller and Pennycuff describe how they engage, motivate, and ‘educate’ – even without substantive facts! Storytelling presents HEIs an opportunity to combat this misinformation through public education, drawing people to explore concepts they never thought they were interested in. This is surely a key skill of researchers seeking societal relevance. 

Indeed, as deploying digestible evidence and experience becomes increasingly key to accessing funding, those ‘ivory tower’ habitants that neglect storytelling will risk their access to funds and ability to conduct further research. 

Leading with a story

The traditional “gatekeeper” role of communications professionals is defunct, argues Jim Macnamara. Instead, they should support researchers to construct clear, distinctive narratives that illustrate not just research findings but what it stands for. This unique voice – what storytelling guru Paul Smith calls “leading with a story” – will articulate how research holds relevance for wider audiences, which subsequently inspires and energises engagement and advocacy.  

Designed for corporate storytelling that sells products and services by framing companies as characters that offer solutions, Smith’s CAR (Context, Action, Result) Model can motivate target audiences to engage with research findings. Researchers should authoritatively establish context by identifying societal problems, motivate action by explaining findings in relation to issues, and reach a result whereby audiences grasp both research findings and recommended actions. 

Context – Consider where and when your research takes place (e.g. a cost-of-living crisis or a planet that just experienced its hottest year on record). Although research is a serious business, take lessons from the best novelists when identifying societal issues and ‘main characters’ that will bring the story to life, and be brave when identifying entertaining features of the story. For instance, Woodward positions the University of Cambridge as an influential character, arguing that “many homes in the UK will already be benefiting from Cambridge research”. Similarly, Dr Erica Thompson engages audiences with seemingly inaccessible mathematical models by framing research by its implications for public health, economics, and climate change – later establishing ‘Action’ by criticising models that ignore this. 

Action – Whereas corporate storytellers may outline the development of a product to form connections with audiences, HEIs can position research as part of the story. Dr Kendall Jarrett, whose own research utilised a range of storytelling workshops, identifies opportunities for researchers to allow audiences to grasp and understand concepts through establishing “tension”. This includes sharing research setbacks or how society has moved in ways contrary to research recommendations.  

Result – Corporate storytellers end stories by sharing the fate of ‘characters’ alongside subtle learnings for audiences about products. Similarly, researchers can explain findings in relation to identified issues and outline what audiences should learn, both in terms of research findings and how to respond. 

HEIs can adapt this framework for tailored approaches; for instance, some split ‘Action’ into Rising Action (building arguments and findings atop one another) and Climax (presentation of key findings with most convincing argument). Similarly, Brumley’s “Academic’s Narrative Arc” variation particularly aids researchers with engaging new, non-academic audiences. Embracing the non-linear nature of academic research, Brumley stresses the need for a focused theme, providing a “central image” for connection. 

I recommend that intentional consideration of bespoke storytelling options forms part of the research development process, including asking critically reflective questions like “What audiences beyond academia would I like to reach?”. 

Rhetoric and authenticity 

Audiences pre-judge on spokespeople’s background, emphasizing the need to relay this “central image” through rhetorical techniques. Researchers must not be deterred by this term that conjures images of ancient philosophers, politicians, or TV talking heads; as Ronald Smith notes, telling relatable stories for persuasion is “a basic element of human society”. Researchers are also predisposed to be rhetorically effective through possessing Smith’s “three Cs”: credibility, charisma, and control.   

Credibility refers to possessing expertise and status. Researchers possess academic qualifications and well-evidenced findings but must heed Richard Perloff’s warning to avoid editing or omitting findings that do not fit narratives. This honesty should come naturally because “cherry picking data” is already regarded as misconduct. Audiences easily identify inauthenticity, so willingness to be honest will help establish audience trust and differentiates researchers from the ‘self-publishers’ that manipulate evidence to conveniently support theories. 

Charisma also aids persuasion as some messages resonate with audiences through the “halo-effect” of personal appeal. Our own time following online ‘influencers’ illustrates how audiences engage more with topics shared by those they identify with and feel personally connected to. Thus, researchers should bridge the gap with ‘the real world’ by being open, approachable, and passionate about their field.  

Dr Erica Thompson’s research exemplifies this, using attention-grabbing metaphors and “power words” like ‘the cat that looks most like a dog’, and exemplified by her book title “Escape From Model Land”. Many, especially early-career researchers, can further support their arguments with personal stories that translate complex concepts into digestible formats and inspire by connecting personal experience with research topics. 

Control compounds this inspiration by providing ‘belief’. Whilst declarative statements based on research findings from those in authority positions and prestigious institutions persuade some, others are persuaded by the perception of legitimacy that researchers gain through being willingly accountable and open to scrutiny whilst holding this position. Consequently researchers can use power – in the form of commanding facts – to challenge misinformation and inspire audiences. 

Combined, these elements empower communicators with powerful voices that appeal to both reason through straightforward explanation of findings (“Logos”), or sentimental appeals and emotional arguments (“Pathos”). This is crucial as not all audiences are motivated solely by data and logic. Thompson exemplifies this, using emotional rhetorical hooks and nuance to actively battle what Goldacre calls “bad science”, as well as anti-science attitudes. Thompson contends that “all models are wrong, but some are useful” which disarms natural science sceptics and establishes broader common ground for engagement. 

Regarding Logos, Smith provides rhetorical propositions – Factual, Conjecture, Value, and Policy that develop understanding, build evidence, foster support, and advocate change respectively. A consistent central thread – “strong arguments and clear proof” – lends itself to the authoritative position of HEIs. However, interpretation is key to impact, meaning (commonly disputed) facts alone cannot inspire and motivate changed behaviour. Thus, sentimental appeals (Pathos) are also required. Significant opportunities therefore exist for researchers that can appeal to both heart and mind by contextualising data and hard facts within compelling stories. 

This ability to employ rhetoric whilst retaining authenticity represents a ‘unique selling proposition’ of HEIs in the “battleground of opinion”, as does their research itself. In this theoretical context, the current big data revolution, and increasing importance of drawing salient, persuasive insights, presents an open goal to researchers that are naturally comfortable doing this. As Knowles says, “analytics + storytelling = influence”. 

Leaving the Ivory tower 

In the spirit of this article, it’s time for further examples that illustrate theory in practice. As outlined, powerful stories “humanize” research and show wider societal relevance, gaining access to the policy process by “understanding the structure of a narrative” whilst retaining evidential integrity. 

Researcher John Burn-Murdoch exemplifies this. Far from the only academic using statistics and graphics to explore pressing issues, but in a class of his own in terms of online impact, Burn-Murdoch shows that communication is just as important as data. By turning indecipherable datasets into visually-appealing graphs and compelling stories that allowed audiences to understand COVID-19’s impact not only nationally, but for themselves and their families, he achieved what Flaherty calls “a human face”. This “mirror and magnet” approach ensures key learnings and policy implications appeal beyond the keenest specialists, which, during a pandemic, is surely key to positively impacting society.  

A Visiting Senior Fellow at LSE, Burn-Murdoch also shows that leveraging storytelling tools can be in keeping with work at prestigious HEIs. Researchers should be reassured that translating findings for relevance, accessibility, and – crucially – shareability is not ‘beneath’ them. Indeed, HEIs like UCL now proactively apply these methods, with the Academic Communication Centre training academics to write for broad audiences, host dissemination events, and produce engaging social media posts, and new channels like popular academic podcasts providing HEIs access to shape new audiences’ worldviews. 

As you embark on your own academic storytelling journey, consider the central theme of these avenues of genuinely accessible, two-way communication – they establish trust by going to audiences, rather than expecting them to seek out research.

Dave reflects on the CIPR Professional PR Diploma course

For you, what do you see as the key benefits of having the PR Diploma qualification?

The main benefit of this qualification is it giving me the opportunity to evaluate techniques and ideas and put them into practice. This will equip me in my future career with not only the skills and knowledge, but also confidence.

What has been your favourite part of the CIPR PR Diploma course so far?

My favourite part of the course has been getting the chance to delve deep into theory and then assess how this works in practice by learning from the experience of other brilliant practitioners.

Have you been able to apply any of the learning, and if so, how?

On a consistent basis I find myself applying concepts and techniques covered by the course in practice. Recently, I have been using the measurement and evaluation frameworks to aid my planning of upcoming activities.

Read our Complete Guide to CIPR Qualifications