Her research has been featured in Forbes, The Washington Post, and The Guardian, as well as various Norwegian media outlets. Recently, she received the Research Dissemination Award from Norsk Medieforskerlaget for her commitment to “continuously bringing research to a broad audience”. In our conversation with Natalia Ingebretsen Kucirkova from the University of Stavanger, we discuss strategies for bridging the gap between research and the public, the representation of female researchers in mainstream media, and how media exposure influences the prioritisation of research topics.
Anna Pacholczyk (AP): Research dissemination has become an increasingly essential aspect of modern academia, especially when addressing nuanced subjects like early childhood literacy. How do you navigate the challenge of making complex academic work both accessible and compelling to policymakers and the public, without sacrificing the rigour of your research? What have been your most effective strategies in bridging that gap between academia and the public sphere?
Natalia I. Kucirkova (NK): The approach varies depending on the audience, but the key is to never compromise the science for the sake of style. I focus on making the research relatable by using stories or metaphors to bring the findings to life. I also look for a “hook” – a timely news item or trend that draws readers in right from the start. Once I’ve crafted the message, I think about where it will resonate best, whether it’s a magazine, newspaper, or blog. If there’s a good fit, I pitch the story to them to reach the right audience.
In terms of effective strategies, I guess it is always helpful for scientists to ask the question, “so what?” – that is, to think about the real-world applications of their research. How can the specific findings influence policy, practice, and everyday life? Or in my case, everyday education for young children?
In terms of effective strategies, I guess it is always helpful for scientists to ask the question, “so what?” – that is, to think about the real-world applications of their research.
But it is not just writing. It is also presentations, webinars, community events, or even creating specific artefacts that are research-based (I created children’s apps or wrote children’s books, as an example). The point I am making is that pathways to impact can be multiple, and scholars should feel incentivised to communicate research in a way that fits best the audience they want to reach.
AP: The visibility of researchers in the media often seems to influence which topics get attention – and by extension, which projects receive funding. In your experience, have you noticed a correlation between media exposure and the research that becomes prioritised? Do you think this media-driven focus shapes academic trends or creates blind spots in our understanding of critical issues?
NK: That’s a great question, and it’s something I’ve also considered and written about. There’s a tendency in journalism to focus on reporting studies with large sample sizes, often overlooking the actual quality of the research. Most journalists are not trained in research methods and don’t have the scientific literacy needed to assess quality within specific domains. This can lead to stories that only present one side of the picture or exaggeration of study findings’ implications. Additionally, there’s the issue of so-called academic media stars – researchers who are frequently quoted because they are on journalists’ contact lists. While some researchers may be great communicators, no one is an expert in every field, and it would be much more beneficial if journalists consistently sought out diverse domain experts. I recognise that identifying these experts is more time-consuming that just to tap a known contact. Universities could help with a streamlined open repository of experts, and being proactive in reaching out to media outlets when new studies are out.
There’s the issue of so-called academic media stars – researchers who are frequently quoted because they are on journalists’ contact lists.
AP: The balance between producing high-quality research and engaging with the public through media can be a delicate one. Given the time demands of both, how do you maintain that equilibrium?
NK: Striking the right balance is indeed challenging. In most university systems, engaging with the public vis-à-vis fellow scientists isn’t equally rewarded. While some institutions have started to recognise impact and knowledge brokering as integral components of a scientist’s role, for many, this type of engagement is considered an extra, unpaid obligation.
As a result, public engagement often takes place in the limited time available in-between everything else, and often during weekends. This approach can easily lead to burnout for those trying to excel both in producing high-quality research and communicating it effectively. Ultimately, there are only 24 hours in a day, and managing both responsibilities is a significant challenge.
AP: As a foreign researcher in Norway, do you find that your international background brings a distinct perspective to public dissemination?
NK: I’m not entirely sure, but I’ve noticed that many of my Norwegian colleagues don’t instinctively consider international media as a viable outlet for sharing their research findings. In this context, I find that my international background is an advantage, as I perhaps have more experience navigating various global media outlets, both as a reader and contributor. But then on the other hand, it takes me many more hours and drafts to craft a good “kronikk” that it would take a native speaker (and I do feel the duty to communicate in Norwegian).
I also think the tradition of scientists personally disseminating their work isn’t as common in Norway. At our university, we have dedicated communication managers for that purpose. However, they are often busy serving the needs of the entire department, making it challenging for individual researchers to ensure timely dissemination of their work.
AP: Despite some progress, women remain significantly underrepresented in mainstream media when it comes to academic expertise. You’ve been a vocal advocate for women taking up more space in the public arena. What advice would you offer women academics who want to expand their presence in the media? And do you believe media outlets have a responsibility to actively bridge this gender gap, or does the burden of visibility fall on the researchers themselves?
NK: I strongly believe that media outlets have a responsibility to actively bridge the gender gap by seeking out women as expert commentators on various scientific topics. That said, as we discuss the importance of creating opportunities for a wider range of voices, I want to highlight the need to consider intersectionality – so not only gender, but also diverse socioeconomic, ethnic, or personal backgrounds.
As we discuss the importance of creating opportunities for a wider range of voices, it’s essential to consider intersectionality – so not only gender, but also diverse socioeconomic, ethnic, or personal backgrounds.
As academics, we need to reflect on our own practices as well. Have you examined the gender and ethnic diversity of the scientists you cite in your references? We must champion inclusivity in academia and media, as these are vital power centres.
Picture credit: Høgskulen på Vestlandet