Mutinous mycelium, developing science communication networks outside the university

Public engagement with research is now denoted as an intrinsic aspect of scholarly practice to access research funding (Papatsiba and Cohen, 2020). However, when scholarly success is judged on whether researchers modify their behaviours, there is a fundamental tension which Baird and Elliott (2018) liken to a “football transfer” window. Academic identity arguably is affected by this phenomenon. <br/><br/>It is suggested that identity sits at different places in relation to the way that academics link their research, teaching and public engagement (McKinley et al., 2020; Carr et al., 2020). Resilience is justifiably important to maintain individual academic identity, but this comes down understanding of what is important or necessary for the public, which can be political, institutional, as well as individual (Punch and Oancea, 2014). <br/><br/>In the case of the research excellence framework (REF) metrics are linked to impact case studies which can inform the denoted quality of research and attendant funding but this sometimes comes at the expense of teacher agency within the triple nexus of research/teaching and public engagement (McCune, 2019; Stevenson and McArthur, 2015). My PhD study looked at the experiences of STEM lecturers working in Scottish Universities. <br/><br/>It was found that lecturers in this study experienced a sense of wellbeing from delivering public engagement activity in science communication (e.g. workshops, performances or classes) beyond the walls of the university (Gani et al., 2024). Within this, I consider the “H” factor, a re-imagined spin-off of the H-index. “H” is a factor of humanist principles that informs the norms and values relating to an educator’s academic identity (Burdick and Sandlin, 2015; Rowley, Fook and Glazzard, 2018). This paper will discuss aspects of academic identity that enable scientists to communicate their research to broader audiences.