Blog

  • Harnessing AI to advance translational research and impact

    Harnessing AI to advance translational research and impact

    In July, HEPI, with support from the publisher Taylor & Francis, hosted a roundtable dinner to discuss harnessing AI to advance translational research and impact. This blog considers some of the themes that emerged from the discussion

    Travel through a major railway station in the near future and you may see, alongside the boards giving train times, a video of someone using British sign language. This could be an AI-generated signer, turning the often difficult-to-hear station announcements into sign language so that deaf people can understand what is being said. It is just one example of how artificial intelligence is increasingly being used in the real world.

    The question this roundtable focused on was how AI could be used to advance translational research. That is, taking curiosity-driven research and turning it into a real-world application. What role can academic leaders and publishers play in shaping ethical, inclusive and innovative uses of AI in such research? How can AI enhance collaboration across disciplines, and what are the potential barriers, ethical dilemmas and risks involved in the process?

    The discussion, attended by senior university and research leaders, publishers and funders, was held under the Chatham House rule, by which speakers express views on the understanding they will be unattributed.

    Advantages and risks

    Speakers agreed that AI has huge potential to allow researchers to analyse large datasets cheaply, quickly, and accurately, turning research into real-world applications, as well as improving accessibility to scientific knowledge. They noted that AI can help provide plain language summaries of research and present them in different formats, including multilingual or multimedia content, while also opening useful ways for learned societies to disseminate research findings among their member practitioners.

    But risks were identified too. How could the use of AI affect creativity and critical thinking among researchers? How can academics guard against bias and ensure transparency in the data on which AI tools are based? And what about environmental concerns – in terms of maintaining the energy-guzzling AI system and managing electronic waste?  Most worryingly, when AI is involved in research and its application, who is ultimately accountable if something goes wrong?

    Such concerns were addressed in a guide for researchers on Embracing AI with integrity, published by the research integrity office UKRIO in June. https://ukrio.org/wp-content/uploads/Embracing-AI-with-integrity.pdf.

    Delegates at the roundtable were told that one message to draw from this guide was that researchers using AI should be asking themselves three essential questions:

    1. Who owns the information being inputted into the AI?
    2. Who owns the information once it is in the AI?
    3. Who owns the output?

    Working together

    Collaboration is key, said one speaker. That means breaking down existing academic silos and inviting in the experts who will be responsible for applying AI-driven research. It is also crucial to consider the broader picture and the kind of future society we want to be.

    One concern the roundtable identified was that power over AI systems is concentrated in the hands of just a few people, which means that rather than addressing societal problems, it is creating divides in terms of access to information and resources.

    ‘We are not in the age of AI we actually want’, said one speaker. ‘We are in the age of the AI that has been given to us by Big Tech.’

    Tackling this issue is likely to involve the development of new regulatory and legal frameworks, particularly to establish accountability. Medical practitioners are particularly concerned about ‘where the buck stops’ and how, for example, potentially transformative AI diagnosis tools can be used in a safe manner.

    Others at the roundtable were concerned that placing the bulk of ethical responsibility for AI on researchers might discourage them from testing boundaries.

    ‘When you do research, you can never have that control completely or you will never do novel things’, said one. Responsibility must therefore be shared between the researcher, implementer and user. That means everyone needs education in AI so they understand the tools they have been given and how to use them effectively.

    Reliable data

    Being able to rely on the underlying datasets used in AI is essential, said one speaker,  who welcomed the government’s decision to open up public datasets through the AI Opportunities Action Plan https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ai-opportunities-action-plan/ai-opportunities-action-plan and to curate a national data library https://datalibrary.uk/. 

    There was a difference, it was agreed, between research driven by commercially available AI tools when it was not possible to see ‘inside the black box’ and research based on AI tools in which the datasets and algorithms were reliable and transparent. The former was like presenting a research paper that provided the introduction, results, and analysis without explaining the methodology; it was suggested.

    Educating users

    Yet AI is not just about the data on which it is based but also about the competence of the people using it. How can higher education institutions ensure that students and researchers, particularly early career researchers, have the know-how they need to use AI correctly? (The Taylor and Francis AI Policy may be of interest here.)

    It was pointed out that the independent review of the curriculum and assessment system in schools in England, due to publish its recommendations later this year, is likely to be a missed opportunity when it comes to ensuring that pupils enter university with AI skills.

    Meanwhile, politicians are struggling to establish the right framework for AI research, as they often lack expertise in this field.

    This is a problem since the field is moving so fast. It was suggested that rather than wait for action from policymakers and a regulatory framework, researchers should get on with using AI or risk the UK being left behind.

    Social vision

    The roundtable agreed that making decisions on all this was not just the responsibility of academia. But where academic research could be useful was in filling the gaps in AI development that big commercial companies neglected because they prioritised business models.

    Here, researchers, including in the arts and humanities, could be important in deciding what society ultimately wants AI to achieve. Otherwise, one speaker suggested, it would be driven by the ‘art of the possible’.

    Meanwhile, what skills do universities want researchers to have? Some raised the fear that outsourcing work to AI could mean researchers being deskilled. Evidence already suggests that the use of AI can reduce students’ metacognition – the understanding of their own thought processes.

    ‘If we think it’s important for researchers to be able to translate their findings, don’t let a machine do it’, said one speaker. Another questioned whether researchers should ever be using tools they do not understand.

    Artificial colleagues

    One suggestion was that rather than outsourcing their work to AI, researchers should be using it to enhance their existing practices.

    And while some were concerned about the effect AI could have on creativity, one speaker suggested that, by calibrating AI tools to investigate concepts at the edge of scientific consensus, they could be used to spark more original approaches than a human group would achieve alone.

    Another positive identified was that while biases in AI can be a problem, they can also be easier to identify than human biases.

    The roundtable heard that successfully accommodating AI should be about teamwork, with AI seen as another colleague – there to advise and reason but not do all the work.

    ‘The AI will be the thing that detects your biases, it will be the thing that reviews your work, and it will support that process, but it shouldn’t do the thinking, ’ was the message from one speaker. ‘Ultimately, that should come back to humans. ’

    Taylor & Francis are a partner of HEPI. Taylor & Francis supports diverse communities of experts, researchers and knowledge makers around the world to accelerate and maximize the impact of their work. We are a leader in our field, publish across all disciplines and have one of the largest Humanities and Social Sciences portfolios. Our expertise, built on an academic publishing heritage of over 200 years, advances trusted knowledge that fosters human progress. Under the Taylor & Francis, Routledge and F1000 imprints, we publish 2,700 journals, 8,000 new books each year and partner with more than 700 scholarly societies.

    We will be working together to develop a HEPI Policy Note on the use of AI in advancing translational research. If you have a fantastic case study or AI-related translational approach at your institution, we would love to hear from you. To tell us more about your work, please email [email protected].

    Source link

  • Beyond Digital Literacy: Cultivating “Meta AI” Skills in Students and Faculty – Faculty Focus

    Beyond Digital Literacy: Cultivating “Meta AI” Skills in Students and Faculty – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Reactions to intl student cap increase – Campus Review

    Reactions to intl student cap increase – Campus Review

    The international student cap in Australia will increase from next year with an extra 25,000 placements on offer for universities.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • UOW reduces job cuts again – Campus Review

    UOW reduces job cuts again – Campus Review

    The University of Wollongong (UOW) on Monday announced it now only needs to cut between 85 and 118 full-time positions instead of the originally proposed 155 to 185 jobs.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Call to promote university racism survey – Campus Review

    Call to promote university racism survey – Campus Review

    The Australian Human Rights Commission’s landmark Racism@Uni survey will appear in student and staff inboxes from August 11.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Be a Visible Expert with Dr Lily Rosewater of Pitch Science

    Be a Visible Expert with Dr Lily Rosewater of Pitch Science

    Dr Lily Rosewater designs websites, brand assets, and has a service for social media on demand at her company, Pitch Science. I knew she’d be a great expert to share with you. She joins me live from Australia to talk about what it means to be a visible expert for scientists and researchers.

    Lily is an expert for scientist websites, social media, and branding through her company, Pitch Science. What about you? What would it mean to be more visible as an expert yourself? We talk about how many academics are known in their communities, but hidden online. Are you one of the HiddenExperts™? Whether it’s been intentional for you or not, you may want people to find you and your research online. Lily can help you too.

    This interview will be also be shared on Spotify soon.

    Bio

    Dr Lily Rosewater is a science communicator, neuroscientist, and founder of Pitch Science. Armed with experience in both scientific research and digital marketing, Lily helps life science organisations and individual scientists share their brilliant ideas with the public to produce meaningful change.

    Lily Rosewater, PhD

    At Pitch Science, she turns science into stories through her purposeful, strategic, and human-centred online science content. Lily’s branding and website design services transform HiddenExperts™️ into VisibleExperts, so that scientists and science brands are ready to guide online conversations and get their work seen by those who matter. She is also empowering scientists to do science communication themselves and extend their reach beyond traditional academic channels with science communication training sessions and her Pitch Lab community. Because the more research expertise is shared online, the more it benefits everyone.

    Source link

  • The rise of the ghost academic

    The rise of the ghost academic

    The conference circuit, once lively with questioning and dialogue, now contends with a new problem: the “ghost academic”.

    These are scholars whose names appear in conference programmes and proceedings, whose abstracts are listed, yet who never turn up to deliver their presentations.

    They accrue the CV line, but never share the substance.

    At first glance, this may seem a minor oddity, a logistical blip among myriad research meetings. But look closer and the phenomenon hints at deeper problems within higher education; changes driven by the mounting pressures of the marketised university.

    These invisible delegates are not simply absent individuals, they are symptoms of a system that increasingly privileges the performance of productivity over the practice of scholarship, with worrying consequences for academic life and the exchange of knowledge.

    The academic CV arms race

    The last two decades have seen universities across the UK, and elsewhere, adopt an increasingly commercial approach to governance and funding. Driven by competition for students, research income, and global rankings, institutions have shifted towards a marketised logic in which outputs, metrics, and performative achievements are central. Performance is tracked through an ever-more elaborate system of audits, league tables, and key performance indicators.

    For academics, this means living under the constant scrutiny, whether at a national level as in the REF (Research Excellence Framework), or internally through job criteria and annual reviews. The message is clear: career progression is tied to visible productivity. For early career researchers and established scholars alike, the need to have CVs brimming with publications, conference papers and other outputs has become existential.

    The ghost academic emerges

    It is within this climate that the ghost academic thrives. The defining feature is simple: the submission and acceptance of a conference abstract, sometimes even the appearance of a full paper in published proceedings, without any intention (or ability) to actually present at the conference. For academics faced with the paradox of decreased funding paired with ever-increasing demands of evidence of impact, having a conference paper publicly available from a conference which was never attended is one way to satisfy the metrics.

    By simply having a paper accepted and your name in the programme, you can pad your achievements in your CV and cite the research as being delivered at an international or national event, regardless of whether you gave the talk, fielded questions, or participated in the event itself.

    Sometimes, this “ghosting” is genuine. Travel plans change, funding falls through, or illness intervenes. Nobody begrudges a legitimate absence. But conference organisers increasingly report a more deliberate pattern: a growing number of accepted speakers who register for an event in order to secure their place, who don’t respond to follow-up communication and fail to turn up, without explanation. The paper often remains in the official record, granting the appearance of participation with none of the substance.

    This is an escalation from another known practice: academics who attend conferences only to deliver their own paper, then promptly depart without engaging in the rest of the event. Ghost academics take it one step further, they do not bother to show up at all.

    More than just an empty chair

    It might be tempting to dismiss the rise of the ghost academic as an organisational nuisance, an inconvenience for conference planners and session chairs. But the long-term consequences are more profound. Conferences are not just mechanisms to present findings, they are vital spaces for academic exchange, where ideas evolve, collaborations form, and feedback improves research. When “ghosting” becomes common, it devalues these functions, turning conferences into mere career-filling rituals rather than platforms for genuine engagement.

    The damage is most acute for those who stand to gain the most from conferences—early career researchers, postgraduate students, and scholars from underrepresented backgrounds. For them, conferences offer spaces to connect with mentors, get feedback on work in progress, and gain visibility in their fields. When speakers don’t show, or when panels are left half-empty, these opportunities diminish.

    There is also a subtler, cultural cost: the erosion of academic citizenship. At its best, the academic conference represents a collective endeavour to advance knowledge through dialogue, questioning, and debate. The ghost academic is a warning sign that the culture is shifting from collegiality to calculation, from dialogue to box-ticking.

    Rethinking academic incentives

    If the rise of the ghost academic is the result of systemic pressures, it follows that only systemic change will address it. First, universities and research funders must reconsider how conference contributions are evaluated. Rather than relying solely on the number of acceptances or proceedings entries, hiring panels and promotion committees should reward substantive forms of participation, such as evidence of engagement in discussion, collaboration with other attendees, or contributions to follow-up outputs.

    Some conference organisers are experimenting with stricter attendance and participation requirements: only registered attendees are permitted in the final programme; attendance is tracked; non-attending speakers are required to submit a video or withdraw altogether. Others are moving towards smaller, more genuinely interactive models, which foster engagement over mass participation.

    Hybrid and virtual conferences, while easier to ghost, can be designed to promote accountability and inclusion. Live question sessions, post-event fora, and real-time engagement metrics offer ways to ensure that participants are more than names on a slide.

    Ultimately, though, the solution must lie in a recalibration of values. As long as academic cultures reward the appearance of productivity over its substance, and as long as institutional structures idolise the performance of output, the ghost academic will remain. We must begin to value intellectual engagement—sharing, questioning, and collaboration, as much as, if not more than, abstract lines on a CV.

    The spectre of the ghost academic serves as a potent warning for higher education. At stake is more than just the orderliness of conference schedules or the hassle faced by organisers. What is imperilled is the tradition of lively, open intellectual exchange that has long been the hallmark of scholarly life.

    Addressing the rise of the ghost academic will not be easy. It will require courage from individuals to resist box-ticking, from institutions to rethink how they view publication and dissemination, and from the sector to restore the culture of engagement which gives academia its enduring value. Only by doing so can conferences reclaim their status as genuine meeting grounds—where knowledge is truly shared, tested, and brought to life.

    Source link

  • Stanford Plans to Cut 363 Jobs

    Stanford Plans to Cut 363 Jobs

    Stanford is the latest university to announce layoffs in the wake of federal policy changes.

    David Madison/Getty Images

    Stanford University plans to cut 363 jobs this fall, starting at the end of September, due to financial challenges driven by federal policy changes, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

    The university previously announced a hiring freeze in February.

    Stanford president Jon Levin and provost Jenny Martinez noted in a letter to campus that the cuts were part of an effort announced last month to reduce $140 million in the general funds budget. They called the layoffs, reported Tuesday, “the product of a challenging fiscal environment shaped in large part by federal policy changes affecting higher education.”

    University officials provided more information in a letter filed with the California Employment Development Department that accompanied the layoff notice. They cited “anticipated changes in federal policy—such as reductions in federal research funding and an increase in the excise tax on investment income” as significant factors driving the reduction of Stanford’s workforce.

    Neither letter provided more specifics on who would be affected by the job cuts.

    Stanford has been in the crosshairs of the Trump administration in recent months, with the Department of Justice launching an investigation into admissions practices at the private university, accusing it and several other institutions of skirting a ban on affirmative action.

    Stanford is one of the wealthiest institutions in the U.S., with an endowment valued at $37.6 billion earlier this year; only two other institutions and a system had larger endowments.

    Now Stanford joins other wealthy peers with multibillion-dollar endowments that have also enacted cuts recently. Last month, Duke University announced that 599 employees had accepted buyouts, and Northwestern University cut 425 jobs as it navigates a federal research funding freeze. While not as well resourced as Stanford, both are among the nation’s wealthiest universities.

    Source link

  • Higher ed groups ask Supreme Court to preserve lower court order to restore NIH grants

    Higher ed groups ask Supreme Court to preserve lower court order to restore NIH grants

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief: 

    • The American Council on Education and other major higher education associations are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to preserve a lower court’s ruling that ordered the National Institutes of Health to reinstate funding for hundreds of canceled grants. 
    • In June, a federal judge vacated NIH directives to nix grant funding for research related to diversity, equity and inclusion. The Trump administration quickly appealed the decision and asked the Supreme Court in July to pause the lower court’s order while an appeals court considers the case. 
    • Eight higher ed groups — including ACE, the Association of American Universities and the Association of American Medical Colleges — argued in legal filings Friday that allowing NIH to cancel the grants again would destabilize the nation’s biomedical research and waste government funding on projects forced to stop midstream. 

    Dive Insight: 

    President Donald Trump signed several executive orders shortly after beginning his second term that prompted the NIH cancellations. One ordered federal agencies to terminate all “equity-related” grants “to the maximum extent allowed by law,” and another directed them to end federal funding for “gender ideology,” which the administration defined as the idea that gender exists on a spectrum. 

    Civil rights groups have noted that anti-LGBT groups use the term “gender ideology” to cast being transgender as a political movement rather than a fundamental identity. And the American Medical Association has said that “trans and non-binary gender identities are normal variations of human identity and expression.”

    The Trump administration canceled vast sums of scientific research funding following those orders. In NIH’s case, the agency often informed researchers of the terminations by saying their work “no longer effectuates agency priorities.”

    The moves quickly drew legal challenges. 

    Researchers and unions argued in an April lawsuit that the move was “a reckless and illegal purge to stamp out NIH-funded research that addresses topics and populations that they disfavor.” A coalition of states also filed a lawsuit that month challenging the terminations. 

    U.S. District Judge William Young agreed with their arguments, ordering NIH in June to restore the plaintiff’s canceled grants. According to a Monday press release from ACE, the order impacted roughly 1,200 grants — though that is only a fraction of the awards that the agency has terminated.

    Since the order only covered the plaintiffs’ grants, ACE and other higher ed groups have also asked NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, in a July 29 letter, to reinstate the other awards canceled under the anti-DEI directives —  “in the spirit of fairness and consistency.” 

    The Trump administration has appealed Young’s decision. So far, federal officials have asked both Young and the appellate court to block the order to reinstate the grants while the appeals process plays out. Both rejected that request. 

    Then last month, the Trump administration took it to the Supreme Court. 

    The higher education groups noted in their legal filings that grant applications undergo rigorous scientific review before NIH accepts them. 

    “In recent months, however, the Executive Branch has jettisoned NIH’s scientific decisionmaking via agencywide directives that mandated the termination en masse of NIH grants deemed related to disfavored political topics,” their Friday filing argued. 

    If those terminations are allowed to stand during the appeals process, critical medical research into diseases like Alzheimer’s and diabetes will be ground to a halt, they said. The groups noted some researchers have had to abandon projects halfway through and lay off staff and students with knowledge of the work. 

    The Trump administration, meanwhile, has argued to the Supreme Court that Young didn’t have jurisdiction to order NIH to reinstate the grants, arguing instead that the matter should proceed in the Court of Federal Claims. In its emergency request, it pointed to the Supreme Court’s April ruling that allowed the U.S. Department of Education to maintain a freeze on $65 million in canceled grant funding for teacher training. 

    In that ruling, the court’s unsigned majority opinion said the government likely wouldn’t be able to recover the funding once disbursed and added that the grant recipients would not “suffer irreparable harm” if a lower court’s order to reinstate the grants was put on hold during the appeals process. 

    The Trump administration urged the Supreme Court to make a similar ruling in the NIH case.

    Source link

  • What do you dream about for your online presence, academics?

    What do you dream about for your online presence, academics?

    Let’s talk about dreams for your digital life

    What do you dream about your online presence that you’re not at now? Is there something you think you want in the future, but you just can’t see it happening? Feel like it will take more work than you have capacity for right now?

    That’s how I felt about my blog/podcast/updating my website. At one point, I felt not good about each of these things. You see, website updates are something that can happen anytime. For professors that might include adding a new publication or speaking engagement.

    But when there are substantive changes you dream about? Or a new project? Sometimes that list of to-do’s can add up. That makes it more than updating what you already have.

    For your online presence, that might look like doing an overhaul of your LinkedIn profile. Writing a new academic bio or faculty profile. Doing a professional photoshoot for photos of you.

    So what sparked taking action for me? Doing it for myself wasn’t enough. It’s when I thought about who this would help, the people who were involved. Which is you! The readers! And all the academics to come.

    I was open about the fact that I was behind on this with my friends, Brittany Trinh and Jennifer Ho. They happened to need to update their websites too. I ended up hosting a coworking day for us. It was fun to do it together, each of us using our energy towards better communication. Sharing a clear representation of who we are on our websites is always a good use of time.

    That’s true for clients I work with on their websites. We’re doing it together. The process of dreaming can make it beautiful. If you have a friend or colleague who is also interested in their online presence, I encourage you to do it together and cheer each other on too.

    That’s one thing I love about websites: it allows me to create an open source trove of articles and interviews that people can find, and people do find, even years after they’ve been shared.

    I’m sharing this story with you because of what came after my redesign, when there was no more to-do list and I had space to think and dream again. That’s when creative opportunity sparked.

    I want to have more conversations with professors, grad students, researchers, the people who help them… because telling our own stories is really powerful. 

    When we can build community and share what we’re open about with people in ways that could help them, we have to make that work for our lives. It has to be doable within our creative constraints, equipment, budget, tech, skills, and time. There are all these things that might impact how we feel about our dreams. 

    For me, having my podcast has always been not consistent. I don’t release episodes on a set schedule. I don’t have the regular publishing schedule that I admire in other podcasters. But I love being able to share in these more accessible ways. 

    I love that you can experience an interview in written form, or watch it on YouTube, or check it out on Spotify. Creating in written, audio, and video format makes it interesting for me to create and it helps more people. I have the capacity to do that. Consistency is the only thing I sacrificed.

    Subscribe to The Social Academic blog.

    The form above subscribes you to new posts published on The Social Academic blog.
    Want emails from Jennifer about building your online presence? Subscribe to her email list.
    Looking for the podcast? Subscribe on Spotify.
    Prefer to watch videos? Subscribe on YouTube.

    The Social Academic Live

    Actually, I remember my first time being open to being on video for my podcast (which had been audio only for 1+ year). I interviewed Dr. Ruth C. White about being on video and TV. She shared a story about pitching herself to the local TV station in the middle of the night. In the morning, she had an invitation to appear on their show that day as an expert on mental health.

    I thought, ‘Wow! I’m so glad I was open to trying out putting myself out there when I didn’t know if I was going to stick with it.’ To be honest, I thought I’d go back to audio and leave YouTube. Nothing was set in stone, except my willingness to try.

    When the spark came that I wanted to highlight more people on The Social Academic this year, I realized my current process of getting episodes out wasn’t going to be within my capacity.

    I’d been teaming up with an audio engineer, Sir Nic, and my husband, Matthew, was doing the video editing. We had a process we were happy with that worked for a long time. But the time frame to get episodes out wouldn’t have allowed me to highlight all the people that I had dreamed about.

    That’s why The Social Academic interview series is now a live-first format. And honestly? That kinda makes me laugh. It brings up a memory of a friend from college, Jose, who was a YouTuber. He was well known enough that some people recognized him. And he made it work, recording in his college dorm room. Jose used to livestream on a platform called YouNow, which is how I met one of my favorite DJs. And, where I first forayed into livestreaming.

    At the time, I was deep into research for my creative thesis, a collection of poetry based on the pianist, Glenn Gould. Gould had a fascinating view of the relationship between audience and performer, and became reclusive later in life. I was a singer. And my own relationship with performance had shifted. It was like better understanding Gould helped me make a more informed decision for myself.

    I no longer wanted to sing for people in person. But I was curious about how musicians were opening themselves up to performing virtually. It seemed like a different relationship, one that created distance while also sharing this more intimate personal side of the musician livestreaming. And the musicians? They seemed mostly relaxed.

    I wanted to explore how I felt performing live to strangers. It touches me to think back to that moment of bravery because opening yourself up can be scary for many people. It certainly was for me. I tried livestreaming a few times. I even got a couple virtual tips. And while my livestreaming experience on YouNow was shortlived, it opened up my mind to what it meant to hold space for people. And, to create space for yourself too.

    Sometimes, the things we try out aren’t your dreams. But they help other people. Maybe they build your capacity. Or, help you to better understand yourself.

    While I never dreamed about being a livestreamer, it really works with the kind of openness I am hoping we can create for each other in that conversation when we are live on The Social Academic interview series.

    LIVE ON THE SOCIAL ACADEMIC

    P.S. There is another live on YouTube this evening! Dr. Lily Rosewater joins me to talk about what it means to be more visible as an expert.

    When you want support to make your dream happen

    What dreams do you have? What dreams have you been holding back? Is there something you’re open to, but you aren’t sure how to get there?

    You don’t have to move forward with your dream now. I just love that you’re open to it for yourself in the future. If I’m more open to my dreams, if my guests are open to their dreams, if you the reader are more open to your dreams…we can better protect higher education in the ways that we care about it.

    Research is important, teaching is important, faculty, and each person on campus has value.

    I want people to be able to have a voice.

    It’s ok if the way you dream about sharing your voice doesn’t feel accessible to you right now. There may be ways or opportunities for you in the future. Naming your dream now can be a gift to ourselves.

    I want to wrap up with a personal story. My father-in-law, Bob Pincus, was one of my first clients back when I started The Academic Designer LLC in 2018. His online presence was not something he dreamed about. Social media in general was not a priority for him. He’s an art history professor, and a local celebrity here where he was art critic for the San Diego Union-Tribune for many years.

    Whether social media was a priority for Bob or not, his audience of people who already care about and were connected with him, were on social media. Every time he posts on Facebook, people are excited to talk with him. Do you have a professor friend like that?

    I’m sharing this story with you because Bob, who never loved social media, had a new dream recently. And actually this is funny, because none of us can remember what first sparked it. My mother-in-law, Georgie, says it was my idea. My husband, Matthew, says it was Bob’s. One day at the Costco in Carlsbad, California, we’re sitting at the outdoor bench having a slice of pizza. By the end of the slice, a plan for his YouTube channel was already in the works.

    Someone who never dreamed about having a YouTube channel now has multiple episodes in progress. He’s sharing in meaningful ways with the public about art in America through video.

    When Bob was laid off from paper, like many excellent journalists around the country were, people suggested he create something for himself. They said, “You should start a podcast!” or a blog. More recently he’s been encouraged to try Substack or a LinkedIn newsletter.

    But you have to want it for yourself.

    I’m so glad that when the spark for sharing on video came to Bob, he was open to the conversation. To turning the idea over in his head and seeing what we could make happen for him as a team. While you can totally start your YouTube channel on your own like I did, Bob knew he didn’t want to get there on his own. When you have an idea, it’s okay if you’re like Bob, thinking, “I need collaborators on this.” Maybe your idea is best solo, but it’s okay if you need a team to support each other too.

    One professor I chatted with who dreams about a podcast to talk about her research field, shared that a reason she’s wanting to be more active on social media is in hopes of finding a co-host for that dream.

    When we have a dream that feels like us and helps share our voice, it’s ok if you don’t know how to get there. These academics were all DIY for their YouTube. I’ve met podcasters who have started on their phone. I’ve met people whose university was able to support them in creating their podcast.

    There are awesome professors out there who turn their class into a limited-time podcast, and encourage students to create video even if it’s something they’ve never tried before.

    I want you to believe that if you don’t know how to do something, there’s an opportunity to explore your dream in the future when you’re ready.

    What’s your dream, academics?

    Here’s a few ideas for what you may dream about for yourself as a professor or researcher. You can help more people by being intentional about how you show up online. If it’s something you want for yourself? I’m excited for you. You’ve got this. Find resources on The Social Academic blog to help you.

    Subscribe to The Social Academic blog.

    The form above subscribes you to new posts published on The Social Academic blog.
    Want emails from Jennifer about building your online presence? Subscribe to her email list.
    Looking for the podcast? Subscribe on Spotify.
    Prefer to watch videos? Subscribe on YouTube.

    Source link