How can research communications cut through anti-intellectual and anti-expert populism?

Anti-intellectualism and anti-expert rhetoric are nothing new.

A cursory glance back at the popular press over the past few decades offers an abundance of language othering researchers and their institutions – from eggheads and boffins, to decrying the rise of “Mickey Mouse degrees” as the relevance of whole fields are brought into question.

In popular narrative, academics are, and have been, frequently painted as being out of reach intellectually, while also being entirely unnecessary to the functioning of a healthy society. This despite the enormous contribution of researchers to all aspects of life, and the similarly enormous effort to relay this to the wider population.

Now, in an era of information overload and ‘alternative facts’, it is becoming increasingly difficult for academics to cut through to a public audience with research-informed information. At the same time, it has never been more important to do so.

The importance of sharing research widely

In 2024, Climate Science Breakthrough started sharing videos online featuring high-profile comedians, such as Jo Brand, and scientists, such as Prof Mark Maslin, as a means of increasing the profile of climate scientists and their work.

In a piece in the Conversation following the release of the first video, Prof Maslin explains that the use of humour in science communication “can have a positive impact on people’s understanding of climate change”, particularly when combined with the greater audience reach of well-known comedians.

And climate change represents only one of the global crises that relies on a shift in public understanding. Work across the research and innovation sector to address public perceptions around anti-microbial resistance, food security, societal frictions and global ecosystem collapse – among many other areas – all require careful and consistent communication with those outside academia.

This focus on thematic impact, the raising of awareness around an issue to shift the Overton Window and potentially drive action, is perhaps the most widely understood motivator for research communications. This is understandable – public understanding and sentiment is key to making and accepting widespread, and sometimes disruptive, changes to the way we live.

However, as populist anti-elite and anti-intellectual rhetoric develops further, there are other, more fundamental (to those working in research and innovation) reasons to communicate research of all kinds as widely as possible.

Understanding the place of university research

Most research conducted in the UK is funded by the government – through core funding as awarded through the Research Excellence Framework (REF) process or through our research councils, both under and including UKRI. In the vast majority of cases, research conducted across our institutions makes a loss financially, and it is beyond the realms of possibility for programmes and projects to be sustained without outside support.

While the benefits to science and society are enormous, at a time where government resources are stretched, the electorate’s views on what constitutes essential public expenditure narrows and becomes shorter-term.

The beneficial impacts of research often take years, if not decades, to become observable to those outside academia – so more must be done in the short- and mid-term to ensure that the inherent value of research is understood widely. If this is not done, research and innovation could find itself an easy target for politicians attempting to balance the books.

There is already evidence of this.

The increase in student fees by 3.1% for 2025, after seven years of domestic rates being frozen, will “do little to resolve the financial stability in the English higher education sector” as delivery costs continue to rise. Meanwhile international student places, frequently used to bolster the finances of the higher education sector, are on the decline as the UK becomes a less-attractive prospect for study – something likely to be compounded by the upcoming international student levy.

The financial instability of the higher education sector, made visible through the recent swathes of redundancies unfolding across the UK, has profound implications for the future of research in all disciplines.

Political and public awareness of university research

In a 2024 survey conducted by the All-Party Parliamentary University Group on public perceptions of UK Universities, only 13% believed that increasing public funding into universities for teaching and research would achieve improvements in the long-term economic prospects of the UK. This is despite an enormous 82% of those with under 18s surveyed saying that they aspire for their children to attend university.

The resultant paper later states that “the gap in people’s knowledge means they don’t immediately think about universities when they think about how best to tackle the challenges facing the country… this opens up huge possibilities for UK universities to explain to people how their graduates and research will ultimately help build and maintain UK competitiveness in a range of industries.”

In order to ensure the Government prioritises a well-supported research and innovation sector during troubled financial times, it needs to be something that is better understood and valued by the electorate.

And the time to achieve this may be getting narrower.

With the rise of Nigel Farage’s Reform UK, some are already speculating that they will be a contender for the 2029 general election, and their policies around the higher education are deeply worrying.

In their summer conference, Gawain Towler – tasked with developing the party’s skills policy – has declared higher education a ‘waste of time’, with George Finch, leader of Warwickshire Council  referring to universities as akin to a “communist conveyor belt” at the same event.

These pronouncements act to reinforce anti-expert sentiment, but they also are also made by political activists who know that positions radically opposed to universities won’t lose them votes.

The growth of anti-expert and populist sentiment

Anti-expert rhetoric abounded following the Covid-19 lockdowns, particularly on social media platforms such as Twitter (later X) and Facebook. The rise of alternative truths, alongside fabrication of imagery and video through recent advances in technology – notably artificial intelligence and deep-fakes – has compounded this as individuals and communities of people (predominantly online) choose to build narratives that reinforce their own worldviews.

Populism in high-level global politics also gives credence to this behaviour, particularly in the United States where political pronouncements about pharmaceutical side-effects and refusal to accept many existing consensus in climate science reinforce the impression that scientists and researchers can be ignored, and their positions cast aside as redundant.

As the number of people holding anti-intellectual views grows, this makes it all the more difficult for research-informed discussion and information to cut through. And the more researchers try, the more difficult this becomes. Research has shown that consensus cues make anti-intellectuals “double down on their rejection of expert positions” – so the more experts agree on something, the more resistance they’re likely to face from particular sections of society.

For researchers, this provides a very difficult arena in which to share their research.

Recentring the experts

Research by Annie Li Zhang sought to open up conversations with prolific science communicators (those with an audience of more than 10,000 people on one or more platforms) about what motivates them to share their work, their tactics for managing their online presence, and the obstacles they face in building and maintaining their presence on social media platforms.

In this, the three key motivators for individual researchers to share their work were to humanize and challenge stereotypes of scientists, build trust and credibility through authenticity, and to push back on exclusionary narratives within Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM).

These goals go beyond the simple sharing of research outcomes, and act to recentre the expertise at the heart of discovery and innovation. As necessary as this is to ensuring the wider understanding of the importance of research to science and society, it will inevitably come at a cost to the individual researchers pursuing these goals – costs which are heightened for researchers which are from non-traditionally dominant backgrounds in academia.

On social media, harassment of anyone considered to be part of the ‘elite’ is rife, and while researchers may deploy protective measures to ensure their own wellbeing and reputations, this can difficult to maintain over long periods of time.

Challenges on both sides

In his Conversation piece on the Translating Climate Science campaign, Prof Maslin is asked about whether scientists should swear in their communications about climate.

While it may not be advisable for science and research communicators to start littering their interviews and posts with expletives, there is a lot to be read into this sense of what makes scientists credible.

In Zhang’s research, participants outlined the difficult balancing act many researchers face in sharing their work with a broad audience. Authenticity and self-editing are used to varying degrees to manage this by those with substantial audiences, but context collapse – where content finds itself outside of the intended audience, or across multiple competing audiences – on social media makes this almost impossible to manage entirely.

There is also, often, a lack of support offered by peers for those who work to disseminate scientific and research findings across a wider range than traditional academic publishing will allow.

The impetus senior researchers, and the research and innovation ecosystem, places on publishing in prestige journals often drives researchers away from spending time on working on non-traditional publication routes. At a time where researchers are immensely pressed for time, and are balancing many competing workloads, communications work can sometimes be regarded by senior peers as inconsequential or, in some cases, harmful.

This leaves those who want to work on sharing their research in a bind – with little support for this kind of work from their senior peers and home institutions, and growing anti-expert sentiment in online spaces, they leave themselves open to the risks of both a stalling career and significant mental strain.

Driven by potential

Despite the multitude of challenges facing research communicators, from both external audiences and those within the research and innovation ecosystem, there are many who see the value of public communications as outweighing the drawbacks.

There are a slew of reasons for researchers to promote their work on a personal level too – from sharing the joy of discovery with others, to create wider understanding and interest in their field, and to inspire and encourage others to join them in their disciplinary (or interdisciplinary) fields.

There are also the possibilities for making new connections with those working in their field, and beyond it; the potential for influencing policymakers; or the opening of new avenues into business through innovation and commercialisation.

For the sector, as already outlined, there is an urgent need to make the general electorate cognisant of the tremendous value being contributed by researchers working across the sector – a task made all the more urgent as populist narratives fuel increasing anti-intellectualism.

But this task is of mammoth proportions and can’t be left to individual researchers alone.

Supporting research communicators

The higher education sector cannot directly steer narratives away from harmful anti-intellectual and anti-expert sentiment, but it is in a position to help support those who want to engage in the work which will directly challenge this.

All universities have communications departments, and those that are considered research intensive will have teams or sub-departments solely concerned with the promotion of their institution’s research. But far too often, these are considered an addendum to the press team – a system that translates research outputs or impact for press and media.

While any communication about research is positive, and helps create further awareness of the work of the UK’s extensive research community, much could be done to support researchers to build and develop their own presence online.

By providing researchers with the tools, skills and support to harness their own expert narratives and share these publicly, universities will be in a better position to extend the reach of those working across their campuses and beyond. This will also help to humanise the public conception of researchers and the work they do – chipping away at the ‘us versus them’ of populist anti-elite and anti-intellectual rhetoric.

Sharing the enormous contribution made by the UK’s research and innovation sector, and not hiding the role of the expert among the outcomes, will make it all the more difficult to ignore the importance of those working in higher education for all our lives.

__________________________________________________________________

Karis Welch’s perspective on studying for the CIPR Professional PR Diploma 

Karis prepared this article for a CIPR Professional Diploma assignment while studying with PR Academy.

What do you see as the key benefits of studying the CIPR Professional PR Diploma?

Working in communications in a research institute is a fantastic role, but it also comes with some challenges. I’m the only comms specialist in my team and, because of this, there’s no one with the PR and comms sector knowledge to push me to do better, to make sure I’m excelling and developing my offer.

I also sit across two worlds – research management and comms – and this can make it difficult to translate some of what I do in a tangible and measurable way that my team will be able to relate to.

The diploma course, through the topics it covers, has given me a deeper understanding of comms frameworks and models, and this in turn has given me the confidence to know where my expertise is solid, and what needs more work. The course has also helped me find ways to translate this expertise to my team, so we’re all on the same page when it comes to coordinated delivery.

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

All of the areas covered in the diploma have been really helpful, but it’s probably the general ways of working that have been the most transformational for my practice – particularly using frameworks and models to stress test or add additional perspectives.

Overall, this has given me a lot more confidence in my own communications knowledge and skills.
Beyond the diploma course itself, I think my favourite part of PR Academy’s delivery model is the flexibility it offers. When I started the course I (rather blithely) said I’d be done within a year, completely neglecting to account for the pressures of a full-time job and the commitments that come with having a young family. It has been exceptionally hard work, but I know I would never have been able to do it if it wasn’t for the option to set my own work schedule.

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

This course has completely changed the way I work, but very much in a holistic sense. Through developing a better understanding of professional PR and communications practice, I’ve been able to understand what I can offer in my organisation and how to translate this offer to those in senior positions.

The confidence of knowing more in terms of professional practice has also meant I’ve been able to focus increasingly on how these frameworks and models map onto my sector, and consider where there are real opportunities to develop strengths and capabilities.

About the CIPR Professional PR Diploma 

The PR Diploma is a Master’s level qualification for more experienced practitioners who are looking to underpin what they do with theory and contemporary models.  Topics include PR strategy and planning, content management, media and engagement, measurement and evaluation, and PR leadership and process improvement. 

You have two years to complete it but with PR Academy you set your own study pace and many students finish in about ten months. 

Read our Complete Guide to CIPR Qualifications