UNIVERSITY RESEARCH MAGAZINES:

Abstract

Many of this nation's universities publish research magazines, but information on this genre of science communication is scarce. This study surveyed the editors and university administrators of 56 research magazines, first, to update a decade-old profile of such publications and, second, to investigate why economically pressured administrators support this method of communication. The survey was based on a case study of Arizona State University’s ASU Research and asked about magazine purpose, audience, content, cost, production characteristics, and management style. It also asked about the importance of university research magazines compared to news bureaus, alumni magazines, and the media. The response rate was 59%.

The typical research magazine was an 8 1/2 by 11 inch, four-color, triannual, 32-page publication sent to about 10,000 people and costing $30,000 or less per issue. Magazine content, audience, and described purposes reflected the editors’ and publishers’ emphasis on enhancing public awareness of the research process. The investigator’s expectation that administrators might emphasize more institutionally-oriented benefits of research magazines, such as attracting potential funding, was only partially borne out. These administrators, most of whom were at Research I universities, were both philosophically and financially committed to their magazines and afforded their editors a high degree of freedom. Editors and administrators perceived that research magazines were more accurate and credible than the mass media. They produced eye-catching publications aimed at a lay audience and favored a consumer-oriented style.

The researcher concluded that these magazines were produced in an environment that fosters quality, and that administrative involvement does not necessarily compromise editorial freedom.

Acknowledgements

During the doldrums and the frantics of thesis writing, the researcher often feels isolated and alone. I was never alone during this project. I would like to thank my committee members for their support and encouragement. Appreciation goes to Ed Sylvester, my chairman, for his philosophical guidance and ability to pinpoint exactly where I wanted this project to go, sometimes before I had completely framed my ideas. He generously lent his office and computer, which made the survey and database work smoother than expected. His support as a science-writer mentor has provided me with invaluable career insight over the past two years, for which I am ever grateful. Thanks to Dr. Roy Halverson for supporting this project before it even became one, and for his kindred attention to editing detail. To Dr. Fran Matera, my gratitude for hours of tutoring in the unfamiliar world of quantitative analysis, and for ice cream. Her background in qualitative methods lent a degree of depth the study may not otherwise have had.

Appreciation also goes to everyone at ASU Research magazine for their candor, willingness to participate in the study, and input into the final instrument. Conrad Storad and Michael Hagelberg have been an inspiration to a fledgling science writer, and their genius in magazine production was the primary impetus for this study. To Dr. Robert E. Barnhill, ASU's vice president for research, goes my admiration for supporting such a publication and my thanks for last-minute help with the administrators’ survey. Thanks also to the ASU news bureau’s Steve Koppes, who was always ready with a quick fact.

To my friends and family, who have been patient during these incredibly intense two years, my gratitude for your love, understanding, and support.

UNIVERSITY RESEARCH MAGAZINES:

PURPOSES AND CHARACTERISTICS

OF A SCIENCE-WRITING VENUE

Alana D. Mikkelsen

has been approved

March 1994

APPROVED:

Chairperson

Supervisory Committee

ACCEPTED:

Dedication

To my parents — all four of them.

For instilling in me the courage to move to an unknown place and direct my life toward something at once alien and completely fitting. Your emotional and financial support made coming home much easier.

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. The Typical University Research Magazine.............................. 50

2. Topics Covered by University Research Magazines............... 55

3. Audiences Targeted by University Research Magazines........ 57

4. Groups Ranked by Portion of Total Magazine Audience....... 58

5. University Research Magazine Elements Ranked

How Regularly They are Carried............................................... 60

6. How Research Magazine Editors Measure

Their Publication’s Success........................................................... 63

7. Editors’ Perceptions of Their Editorial Freedom...................... 74

8. Do Editors Find it Difficult to Justify Their

Magazine or its Format to Their Administrators?................... 75

9. Objectives Chosen Among the Five Most Important

by Research Magazine Administrators and Editors................ 90

10. Editors’ and Administrators’ Ranking of University

Research Magazine Objectives.................................................... 94

11. Trends in Research Magazine Budgets

Since Beginning of Publication.................................................. 100

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Editors’ Descriptions of Research Magazine Approach.................... 62

2. Number of Respondents Ranking Each Objective

First of Second Most Important........................................................... 93

3. Administrators’ and Editors’ Responses to Statements on

“Popularly-styled” University Research Magazines......................... 95

4. Administrators’ and Editors’ Responses to Statements on

Advantages of University Research Magazines................................ 98

Table of Contents

List of figures............................................................................................................ v

List of tables............................................................................................................. vi

CHAPTER:

I. Background to the Problem.............................................................................. 1

Getting the Message out............................................................ 2

Statement of the Problem........................................................ 3

scope of the study........................................................................ 6

Significance of the study.......................................................... 7

II. Review of the Literature................................................................................ 9

public appetite for science..................................................... 10

Satisfying the Hunger............................................................... 12

Universities and the Information Imperative............... 12

University research magazines:

one alternative................................................................... 15

Balancing Public Relations and

Information roles............................................................... 18

summary........................................................................................... 19

III. Methods.......................................................................................................... 20

generation of the study......................................................... 20

qualitative method: the theory

behind case study................................................................ 21

constant comparison: a method

for validating constructs............................................ 25

reason for selecting ASU Research ................................... 28

RESULTS OF THE CASE STUDY....................................................... 29

QUANTITATIVE METHOD................................................................ 32

DEFINITIONS....................................................................................... 34

•Conceptual.................................................................................. 34

•Operational................................................................................. 36

DELIMITATIONS................................................................................. 38

LIMITATIONS...................................................................................... 37

ASSUMPTIONS.................................................................................... 38

IDENTIFYING THE SAMPLE POPULATION.................................... 38

INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLIMENTATION............ 40

THE FINAL INSTRUMENT................................................................. 42

DATA ANALYSIS................................................................................ 47

IV. Results............................................................................................................. 48

Magazine Profile.......................................................................... 49

•Characteristics related to the institution....................................... 52

•Topics covered............................................................................... 53

•Audience........................................................................................ 54

•Content, approach, and methods of measuring success............... 59

university demographic profile........................................... 63

responsibilities of editorial or advisory board ........ 66

ADMINISTRATIVE iNVOLVEMENT ................................................ 68

•As measured by open-ended questions......................................... 68

•As measured by closed-ended questions...................................... 71

EDITORIAL FREEDOM....................................................................... 70

•Need to justify?............................................................................. 78

Magazine purpose........................................................................ 81

•Comparing research magazines to other means

of communication.......................................................................... 82

•Descriptions of purpose................................................................ 85

•Institutional importance................................................................. 87

•Objective priorities......................................................................... 89

PERSPECTIVES ON POPULARLY-STYLED MAGAZINES.............. 91

PERSPECTIVES ON THE ADVANTAGES OF UNIVERSITY

RESEARCH MAGAZINES.............................................................. 97

BUDGET TRENDS AND RELATED CHANGES

IN MAGAZINE CONTENT OR FORM........................................... 97

PIE IN THE SKY: IF YOU COULD CHANGE ANYTHING,

WHAT WOULD IT BE?................................................................ 104

EDITORS’ PERSPECTIVES: PHILOSOPHIES ON UNIVERSITY

RESEARCH MAGAZINES............................................................ 105

SUMMARY ....................................................................................... 109

V. Discussion and Conclusions....................................................................... 115

Suggestions for Further Study.......................................... 123

Conclusions................................................................................. 124

Selected Bibliography ......................................................................................... 126

APPENDICES:

Appendix A - Editors’ and Administrators’ Surveys..................................... 130

Appendix B - Cover Letters and Reminder Postcards.................................. 142

Appendix C - Recipient Universities and Their Publications, by State........ 149

Appendix D - Targeted Research Magazines (Alphabetical List) ............... 152

final sample.................................................................................... 153

publications omitted ............................................................... 154

Appendix E - Research Magazine Mission Statements.................................. 155

Chapter I: Background to the Problem

In this age of the Human Genome Project, thinning ozone, and humankind’s now-routine forays into space, public understanding of science is an increasingly important element in aiding people to make informed decisions. Traditionally, newspapers and other privately-owned mass media have carried the flow of ideas from the research bench to the public mind (Bogart, 1989). Some studies have characterized the role of such media in science communication, but amid this conceptual exploration, one venue of science news — the university research magazine — largely has been overlooked.

University research magazines lie close to the heart of science. They are, of course, produced at universities — institutions with the second-highest level of research activity in the country, behind industry. In 1993, the academic sector spent close to $26 billion[1] of the country’s $161 billion in research expenditures (National Science Board, 1993). That same year, universities and colleges performed 62% of the nation’s basic research, following their tradition of being the most important source of scientific knowledge in that category.

Federal funding for basic research has inched up since 1980. Indeed, this area is one of the few in research and development experiencing any growth beyond inflation (National Science Board, 1993; Studt, 1994). But with the economic downturn of the early 1990s and clamps on deficit spending, budget pressures have tightened everywhere — and the squeeze is not expected to let up soon (Studt, 1994). As a result, members of the scientific community have had to reprioritize some of their goals. In many instances, the casualties of financial restructuring have been in the realm of basic research — witness the cancellation of the partly-built particle accelerator in Texas, the Superconducting Super Collider. Such economic realities weigh heavily on an academic community struggling with its reputation amid recent charges of scientific misconduct and fraud (Carey, 1990) and debates over whether university research interferes with the quality of teaching (for a discussion of teaching versus research responsibilities, see Study Group of the Science and Technology Policy Committee at the University of South Carolina, 1991). In the face of such concerns, it is all the more important for university administrators to justify both their research and non-research activities to the public.

Getting the Message Out

Part of the responsibility for justifying research lies with university communicators. Their job, as liaisons for a public entity, is to tell people what their institutions are doing and why (Arizona State University News Bureau Mission Statement). Traditionally, universities have relied on two entities to deliver their message: the news bureau or communications office, and the alumni or general-interest university magazine. Both cover a variety of news and events, from last night’s win by the college football team to tomorrow's appointment of a new president. They may have a few writers who specialize in reporting scientific or scholarly activity (the equivalent of the traditional science “beat” reporter at a newspaper), but their focus is much more general (Arizona State University News Bureau Faculty/Staff User’s Guide). Furthermore, the immediate target audiences of these traditional venues are fairly specialized. News bureau writers hope their stories are picked up by the local and national media, while alumni magazines generally go to a limited audience of former students.

Only one form of university communications specializes in taking stories about science directly to the general public. University research magazines attempt to show people the intricacies, issues, and value — indeed the excitement — of science. Because of their specialized focus they are similar to their privately-owned counterparts, popular newsstand magazines such as Omni, Discover, Health, and Popular Science.

In another respect, however, they are very different. University research magazines generally are not only vehicles for communicating science news, they are also institutional instruments. Thus, they have dual roles: news outlet and promotional tool. Issues of science advocacy versus journalistic impartiality frequently pop up in discussions of science writing (see, for example, LaMay, 1991), but university research magazines are different because their science advocacy is tied to advocacy of a particular institution. In this respect, these publications hold a unique position within the realms of both science communication and scientific inquiry.

Statement of the Problem

More than 70 universities nationwide produce research magazines, yet little information about these publications exists. At least three researchers have characterized university research magazines (Donohew, 1984; Lee, 1983; Powell, 1986), but the studies were conducted almost a decade ago and were largely attempts to describe the genre for the general information of those who were then shaping the publications. As far as this researcher could determine, no subsequent description of university research magazines has been attempted. Neither has anyone yet investigated issues such as why university administrators are willing to devote resources to such publications when their institutions are under pressure to economize and may already have other means to communicate scientific information.

Anecdotal evidence suggests many research magazines — and other university publications — are fighting for their lives (Powell, personal communication). One editor suggested that universities would have a hard time supporting glossy magazines under budget pressures of the 1990s, and at least one alumni magazine, Boston University’s Bostonia, became a consumer-oriented city magazine to avoid being shut down (Ryan, 1989). Still, many university administrators and employees must be dedicated enough to the concept of research magazines to keep their products from dying. In fact, other anecdotal evidence suggests the number of university research magazines may be on the rise. Over a two-year period beginning in 1992, the co-president of the University Research Magazine Association received inquiries from between 20 and 30 university communicators interested in creating research magazines (C. J. Storad, personal communication, September 1994).

Any regular reader of such publications could guess at some of their possible purposes. They can create interest in a university’s activities, thus attracting funding, students, or faculty. They can bridge the gap between not only scientist and public, but also among scientists in different fields, creating opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration. They can increase understanding of science, or they can simply show the myriad interesting people, problems, and questions lurking behind a university’s doors. Intuition also suggests university research magazines may do these things better than their mass media or institutional alternatives, for several reasons. First, staff members may be more familiar with technical or scholarly subjects and therefore offer more accurate descriptions. Second, scientist-sources may view journalists from within their institutions more as allies than those from outside. Scientists might thus be more willing to talk to university writers, which implies that research magazines may increase the quantity of science news provided to the public. Third, a magazine’s opportunity for more in-depth stories may be more appealing to some readers. As far as this researcher could find, none of these speculations has been verified.

In an effort to explore some of these issues in the context of the research magazine’s dual role as both a news and public relations tool, this project addressed the overarching research question: Why, and in what forms, do university research magazines exist?

Specifically, the study attempted to answer the following sub-questions:

1. What are the purposes of university research magazines and how are those purposes fulfilled?

2. Who are the audiences for university research magazines?

3. What is the range of content and production characteristics of university research magazines? What factors determine those characteristics, and how are those factors related?

4. What are the management styles of university research magazines? That is, to what extent are magazine staffs supervised or controlled by other university officials? What effect does that relationship have on the final product?

5. How much do university research magazines cost to produce?

6. How are university research magazines funded? What are university officials willing to spend on them?

7. How does the amount spent on a university research magazine change throughout the publication’s life? What determines that change?

8. How is the magazine’s success in the eyes of university administrators related to magazine funding?

9. How important do university administrators and their magazine editors perceive university research magazines to be?

10. How do university administrators and their magazine editors characterize the usefulness of university research magazines compared to university news bureaus and alumni or general interest magazines?

11. What special problems or advantages do university research magazines have in covering scientific information? What are these magazines’ strengths and weaknesses?

Scope of the Study

Written material focusing specifically on university research magazines is scant; therefore, the study addressed the research questions by evaluating the perceptions of those most closely associated with these publications, namely their editors and administrative supervisors. This approach was taken to provide a starting point for future research, since it was beyond the focus of this study to evaluate whether research magazines actually fulfilled their stated goals or demonstrated their perceived advantages.

The research was conducted in two stages. The first stage consisted of a case study of Arizona State University’s magazine ASU Research. The case study was used to develop the instrument for the second part of the study — a survey of key university research magazine decision-makers. The survey was the
emphasis of the project. It was sent to research magazine editors and their administrative supervisors at 50 institutions.

Significance of the Study

University research magazines represent the intersection of the interests of a number of people: science communicators, university administrators and communications specialists, and members of the scientific community.

The most obvious significance of this study is to people at universities already having or wishing to start university research magazines. University communicators will benefit from having other examples to go by, and they will be able to cite documented reasons for producing such publications. The study will outline the kinds of organizations that produce these magazines, the philosophies of those committed to providing them, and why their supporters favor them over other methods of science communication.

The study will also be of use to communicators and supervisors at other types of institutions who want to take their messages directly to the public. It will offer a cursory exploration of the relationships between highly-controlled versus autonomous editor-administrator relationships, and it will offer impressions on the affects such relationships have on the quality of institutional publications. Such information will be useful to those considering what level of administrative versus editorial involvement might make their publications most successful.

As a study of a type of science communication, this project will benefit science writers and editors both within the university community and beyond. It may clarify issues, reaffirm relationships, and reinforce or refute assumptions about perceived benefits of some forms of science communication over others. As such, it may spark discussion that leads to improvements in the effectiveness of science communication.

The study also will potentially benefit the scientific community, the normal communication tool of which is the scholarly journal. It will clarify some of the reasons for offering a medium that carries scientists’ message beyond their peers to the public. It may identify more effective methods of increasing people’s understanding of science and its benefits, and thus of increasing support of the scientist’s endeavors.

The latter link will be important to university administrators who wish to display one of the most popularly overlooked yet fundamental aspects of their institutions. The study may show how university research magazines fit, or do not fit, within educational and research goals, and it will explore perceptions about the relative value of explaining science to people beyond the researcher’s institutional boundaries in a way the layperson can understand.

Several hypotheses might grow out of the above discourse. However, this researcher has refrained from making any overt predictions. The reason for this is simple: The chosen subject of this study is a new one, especially in terms of the extent to which it has been investigated. Therefore, one of the most significant aspects of this project is its aim to characterize relationships that are as yet undefined. The project also has the potential to identify issues that have never been investigated before. It will provide the foundation for further research into this form of science communication. Despite the preliminary nature of the study, the inferred hypotheses are not completely speculative; they are based on related literature, to which the next chapter is dedicated.

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

In 1979, science communication scholar Hillier Krieghbaum described the importance and ramifications of public understanding of science:

There is a general recognition that science journalism, unlike some other types of news coverage, plays an essential role in providing background for vital public decisions that may affect health, wealth, and, potentially, global survival. Here social responsibility may run rampant. (p. 16)

Indeed, in the modern climate of a rapidly expanding knowledge base, many decisions require an increasingly technical level of understanding. Such a trend has implications not only for the general public, but for government decision-makers as well (Cronholm & Sandell, 1981; Kriegbaum, 1979). Although the socioeconomic welfare of the nation and its global position are often tied to the country’s level of science education (Williams, 1990), most people are beyond the stage where formal schooling directly enhances their knowledge. At such a stage, adult education largely becomes the responsibility of mass media; the public’s ability to participate in informed, intelligent decision-making thus lies in the hands of these post-graduate educators (Troan, 1960).

In their 1981 study of press coverage of biomedical innovation, Pfund and Hofstadter described the media as “the most effective vehicle for widespread dissemination of science-related events” and said the media “played a pivotal role in shaping the public’s views of scientific or biomedical innovations and their implications” (p. 145). Science coverage, they said, can expose intellectual controversies and cause people to question science policy. Therefore, the importance of such coverage extends beyond simple public understanding; it genuinely influences national policy.

Science communication also helps dispel the public’s traditional image of the discipline and its practitioners (Pfund & Hofstadter, 1981; Thistle, 1958). As Thistle once described:

Nonscientists, including some members of the popular press, tend to believe that there is something mysterious about science .… [and that] a scientific institution is swarming with eye-popping discoveries every Tuesday, most of which the scientists conceal because they are overcautious. Laymen cannot bring themselves to believe that most science is singularly undramatic .… [But they] must learn … that the progress of science is a slow creep. (p. 951)

The potential of science communication, Thistle said, lies partly in its ability to teach people how science really works and, perhaps even more importantly, how scientists view the world. One of the most important researcher attitudes science communication could pass on was “that this is a strange and wonderful universe whose ultimate secrets we will never quite plumb, [and] that it is nevertheless the best sport in the world to try to plumb them” (p. 955).

Public Appetite for Science

Studies over the years have indicated that people want to hear and read about science, both to uncover its mysteries and to make use of valuable knowledge.

Kreigbaum (1959) found that the typical American was quite curious about science and willing to sacrifice other news to get more information about technical subjects. In his compilation of two national reader surveys, Nunn (1979) found that science articles were considered more interesting than any other kind of editorial content and that public interest in science and technology increased between the years of 1971 and 1977.

In the most recent study of public attitudes toward science news, Lou Harris (1993) found that 4 of 10 adults polled were regular, active consumers of science news.[2] Most regular readers read science news in a newspaper on a weekly basis, read books and magazines about science every month, and discussed science-related issues with someone else at least every week. More than half the people in America (56%) were regular viewers of television programs on science, technology, and nature. One-third of those polled said science news was part of their daily lives.

The majority of the nation’s public thought that science news was equally important as news about crime, the economy, politics, sports, and entertainment. They also thought that science news should be given the same status and coverage as other major news categories. A plurality wanted more coverage in 9 of 15 science-related subjects, particularly health and scientific research that impacted on health (for example research into genetic diseases, AIDS, and “gene-splicing which can prevent disease”). Harris concluded that the public interest in news about science was not “an idle fascination with the wonders of science” but that people desired “basic, functional information” that was needed to cope with a modern world.

Satisfying the Hunger

Despite this intense interest, the proportion of resources devoted to science news in most media is scant and declining. Science news generally makes up one of the smallest components of newspaper and magazine coverage (Nunn, 1979). In 1987 only 2% of the space in newspapers was devoted to health or science content (Bogart, 1989). Between 1971 and 1973, the average amount of space devoted to science news decreased (Nunn, 1979), and during the 1980s, several newspapers discontinued their weekly science sections (Jerome, 1992).

Given their findings of extensive public interest in science, Nunn (1979) and Harris (1993) concluded that mass media editors misread their market for technical information, probably to their own detriment.

Universities and the Information Imperative

Not only is science communication important for the public, but it is also important to universities.

One primary reason is accountability. Rogers (1988) has surmised that because members of the public pay for university research through taxes, it is the university’s obligation to increase public understanding of science. The method she advocates is general publicity, while the audience includes legislators who might sit on budget and oversight committees. Science coverage, she says, can be a powerful lobbying tool: “Public pressure for financial support begins with public understanding of and sympathy for science” (p. 27). In her view, educating the public about the procedures and limitations of science increases technical literacy and builds grassroots support for science that lasts a lifetime.

At least two university administrators (Heberlein, 1992; Kleppner, 1991) have written that American institutions could lose their positions as leaders in research and discovery if public support and funding is not increased. Keller (1985) suggested that “a deep ambivalence toward science and technology and indeed all research” exists among members of the lay population. He said such an attitude potentially threatens university funding and must be combatted by outreach efforts:

Surely some alleviation of the growing emotionalism surrounding science, technology, medicine, and social science can be gained by helping people have a better, clearer understanding of who scientists really are, why some professors delve so fiercely, how researchers work, what place a piece of research occupies in our knowledge of certain areas, and what it could mean for us both positively and negatively.

Unless we communicate better, the continuity of support, which is so important for research results, could be disrupted by the widening oscillations of the public and its nervous legislators. (p. 109)

Traditionally, universities have relied on what Keller (1985) called a “sacred trinity” of communication methods. These have been scholarly journals, internally-produced magazines or newsletters, and “the public relations entrepreneurs pleading with and pushing among the commercial mass media for space and attention” (p. 108) (Keller, 1985). Most of these methods have been used since the 1930s, and several writers suggest they are not the best way to get a university’s message to the public.

The university communications office, for instance, relies completely on the media to carry its information to a final target audience. Using this method is chancey: There is intense competition for a small amount of news space; university personnel have no control over how their message will be presented, if it is picked up at all; and the focus of a newspaper is inherently unlike that of a university. Arden and Whalen (1965) have characterized the situation this way:

The mass media are just that — newspapers and other media which appeal to every educational, social and cultural range. They serve up a daily dish of news, horoscopes, advice to the lovelorn, comics, sports, gossip, cheesecake, political columnists, etc. Even the best intentioned
editor must ration the amount of hard news from such fields as science, education and religion.…

The only sure-fire attention getters seem to be photos of shapely majorettes, gag shots of telephone booth stuffing or bed pushing, scandals involving professors and/or students. The public’s opinion of higher education too often has been formed by such trivia which present college as a round of dances, fraternity parties, football games, sex, and shenanigans. (p. 2)

Arden and Whalen suggest that if a university desires control of its message, presentation, and audience, it must produce its own publications.

Storad (1994) also has warned against unrestricted reliance on the media to tell an institution’s story, an approach he describes as “unrealistic if not downright foolish” (p. 4). To those struggling against an institutional push toward such an approach, he says this:

Some uninformed managers and administrators believe that ‘The Media’ exists solely to provide positive coverage for their organization. It’s up to you, the professional communicator, to slap these folks with a reality check. Slap them hard! (p. 4)

Storad argues that scandal and controversy are the meat of modern media and suggests that institutions take control of their own messages on the basis of two assumptions. First, “bad news is always free,” meaning that the media will seek out and cover an institution’s dark side irrespective of the amount of money administrators spend on positively-slanted marketing and public relations. “A million news releases bursting with quality writing about new products, wonderful accomplishments, and new achievements, [or] all the finely tuned statements from administrators that [professional communicators] can muster” are likely to make it, in the majority, to “one specific location: the circular file,” Storad states. He stresses that because the general public has no direct access to press releases and because organizations cannot control which of their messages the media will pick up on, news releases “WILL NOT improve the image” of institutions among members of the community.

Second, and conversely, “good press coverage carries a price tag,” meaning that the most effective way to get one’s message into the popular press is to advertise at exorbitant rates. If one is going to spend the money, Storad argues, why not bypass (or at least supplement) the Russian roulette of hit-and-miss media relations and invest in vibrant, quality vehicles of external communications that penetrate the public consciousness directly.

University Research Magazines: One Alternative

In most discourse about communicating a university’s message, university research magazines are either conspicuously absent or are lumped together with “specialized publications” like business magazines and law journals. Despite this fact, they are an increasingly notable form of institutional communication.

In 1994, for the first time since the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education began honoring outstanding university publications in the 1940s, a special interest magazine was chosen as the association’s magazine of the year (Don Gibbons, personal communication, October 1994). The award, for Stanford University’s Stanford Medicine, shows the considerable maturity and competitiveness of the research magazine genre, the members of which mostly began to appear in the early 1980s (Powell, 1986). According to Powell, medical schools have “always” had alumni magazines; however, their use as communicators of on-going research (primarily to physicians and the health care community) is a “relatively recent phenomenon.” Agricultural colleges and
experiment stations, on the other hand, have been fulfilling a public mandate for communication since at least the 1930s and ’40s.

In a 1981 article on university research magazines, Lee Pilgrim noted that university research publications had evolved from drab, four-page, mimeographed newsletters to slick, colorful magazines. The primary push for this evolution was an increasing need for understanding and appreciation of scholarly inquiry. “The vehicle for describing [university research] has come of age,” he proclaimed (p. 27). Readers, he said, were the “Hansels and Gretels to be lured by what they see,” and research magazines had made tremendous use of attention-grabbing covers to pull their audience in:

The bespectacled turtle and shimmering shore are the wrappings on the commodity we research magazine editors are promoting — research at our institutions. Our charge is to interest the public in what our biochemists, philosophers, psychologists, veterinarians, drama professors, and so on are doing. ‘Research’ is an omnibus word. We write about activities and scholarly investigations as well as physical, life, and social science research. (p. 22)

Specific reasons for institutional use of research magazines is hard to come by in the literature. At the outset of the flourishing of research magazines in the 1980s, however, the University of Minnesota’s William Kell described the circumstances that led him to start such a magazine for his graduate school research development center. Against the backdrop of an increasingly “knowledge-based society,” Kell said his administrators and faculty felt that the university’s major constituencies had not been given a full picture of the university’s intellectual life, a component that forms the foundation of such an institution. They felt that their publication, RESEARCH Magazine, could best fill in the gap in public awareness: