UNIVERSITY RESEARCH MAGAZINES:

PURPOSES AND CHARACTERISTICS OF A SCIENCE‑WRITING VENUE

by Alana D. Mikkelsen

Excerpts From an Applied Project

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree Master of Mass Communication

Arizona State University

March 1995

Abstract

Many of this nation’s universities publish research magazines, but information on this genre of science communication is scarce. This study, first, updated a decade‑old profile of these magazines and, second, investigated the reasons for supporting such publications. Surveys were sent to an editor and an administrator at 65 universities. The questionnaires asked about research magazines’ 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 survey was based upon a case study of Arizona State University’s Research Magazine. 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. The content, audience, and described purposes reflected a largely external focus, which showed the importance these editors and publishers placed on public awareness. The researcher expected that administrators might emphasize institutionally‑oriented benefits such as attracting funding, but that prediction 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, lay‑level publications and thought favorably of 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.

Introduction

Science news is pivotal to the public’s understanding of an increasingly complicated world. Studies have shown that not only do people consider science news as important as information about crime, the economy, politics, or sports and entertainment (Harris, 1993; Kreigbaum, 1959), but they also would trade coverage of other subjects to get more science news (Nunn, 1979). Nevertheless, some communicators have suggested that “a deep ambivalence toward science and technology and indeed all research” exists among the lay public (Keller, 1985).

Such an ambivalence is immediately relevant to universities, where scholarly actvity is most commonly carried out. In the face of high‑profile academic misconduct in recent years, as well as an increasing economic squeeze from government and other entities, outreach efforts that bolster public opinion or help demystify science have become increasingly important. Yet among the discourse on science communication, one set of publications has been glaringly overlooked. University research magazines have been around since at least the 1930s and have become increasingly important forms of institutional communication since then. Following a surge of start‑ups in the 1980s, more than 70 such magazines exist. In 1994, a university research magazine for the first time captured the magazine of the year award given by the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education in its special interest category. Still, little information on this genre exists. It is unclear why university decision‑makers choose to produce such publications in the face of other communication options such as news bureaus, alumni magazines, and general interest publications.

The purpose of this study was to describe the current profile of university research magazines and to define the purposes of these publications as seen by the people responsible for them ‑ namely editors and their administrative supervisors. Administrators were defined as the person with the highest rank in university administration who supervised the research magazine editor and/or had some input into the magazine. One editor and one administrator at each of 65 institutions was sent a survey that investigated their opinions on magazine purpose, a consumer‑oriented magazine approach, and the advantages of producing university research magazines. The study also developed a profile of magazine audience, content, cost, and management style.

Nine magazines were omitted because they did not meet the study’s criteria for a university research magazine (these included several newsletters, two tabloids, and a scholarly journal). From the 57 valid publications that resulted, 30 administrators and 36 editors responded. Response rates were thus 54% for administrators, 64% for editors, and 59% overall (66 of 112 recipients). Selected figures are attached to the end of this excerpt.

Summary Of Results

Editors and administrators who responded were predominantly (81%) from public universities. The mean number of students was 24,139 and the average research expenditure was $124 million in 1993. The largest entity, a northeastern institution, had 95,000 students; the smallest, a medical school, had 450. The institutions spent between $9 million and $320 million on research in 1993, and most had either an alumni magazine or a communication office in addition to a university research magazine.

A majority of the universities (58%) were Research I institutions, meaning they receive at least $40 million per year in federal support for research and development in science and engineering, offer a full range of baccalaureate programs, and award at least 50 doctoral degrees per year. The key findings were as follows.

Magazine Profile

The typical magazine in this sample was an 8 1/2 x 11 inch, four‑color publication with 10,000 readers, 32 pages, and a $30,000 per‑issue price tag (see Figure 1). Most covered the entire university, were published three times per year, and received funding from research‑associated sources such as an office for research. They were generally written, edited, and designed on campus, but many employed off‑campus production.

The largest publication was 72 pages in length, the smallest 11. Between 2,000 and 63,000 copies were produced for each issue, and most magazines clustered at the low end of the circulation range. Nearly 80% of the magazines+ per‑issue cost was $30,000 or less, and most of the rest lay between $45,000 and $75,000. One magazine, a 56‑page, 47,000 circulation publication produced twice per year, cost more than $105,000 per issue. Universities that spent a large amount of money on research were no more likely than more frugal institutions to publish more than twice per year, although most of the universities publishing once a year spent $125 million or less on research. That expenditure figure also was pivotal in comparisons of research spending to cost per issue and number of pages per year: of the institutions that spent $125 million or less on research in 1993, more than 60% of their magazines cost $30,000 or less per issue. About 65% of those magazines totalled no more than 1.6 million pages per year. No cost per page could be calculated because magazine cost was measured in ranges.

Magazine Content

Most of the magazines devoted more than three‑quarters of their content to research‑related topics. Of 10 subject choices, biology was the most popular, followed by chemistry and medicine (see Figure 2). Fine arts and agriculture were covered least often.

Magazine content also was measured by asking editors to indicate which of 13 editorial elements were featured in their magazines, and how often. They indicated frequency by ranking, with a 1, 2, or 3, the elements carried first, second, and third most often. As Figure 5 shows, those elements carried by the largest number of magazines also were carried the most frequently. The most common element was feature articles, which were run by every magazine (36 of 36) and carried most often by nearly 90% of the sample. News briefs and profiles were the second and third most popular elements. No more than 25% of the publications carried administrative addresses, funding or sponsor information, or alumni news.

Audience

Magazine audiences were measured in two ways. First, editors were given a list of 12 possible audience groups and asked to mark each one their magazine was sent to. Second, to gauge the relative make‑up of each magazine’s audience, editors were asked to place a 1, 2, or 3 next to the groups that made up most of the total audience. A ranking of 1 indicated the largest group; groups not ranked were part of the audience but not one of its three largest groups. These questions pointed to two things: a) the extent to which each audience group was targeted by this group of magazines, and b) the relative size of each audience group within each magazine’s total audience.

The four most important audience targets were opinion leaders, faculty or staff, the media, and university sponsors (Figure 3). Each of these was sent to by more than 80% of responding editors. Every magazine in the sample (36 of 36) was sent to opinion leaders, making that group of people the most widely‑targeted audience. Almost all magazines (34 or 94%) were sent to faculty or staff, while more than 75% were sent to alumni or business and industry representatives. Fewer than 50% were sent to high school teachers, students on campus, and “other” audiences.

When audience was evaluated according to component groups’ size, a different picture emerged (see Figure 4). Alumni, which were the fifth most targeted group (sent to by 28 or 78% of magazines), were the greatest portion of most of these magazines’ audiences. They were the largest audience subgroup of half the magazines (18 of 36), and 64% of those who sent their magazine to alumni said that group was one of their three largest audiences. In contrast, opinion leaders, the most widely‑targeted audience members, made up most of the audience for only 2 magazines (6%) and were among the largest three audience subgroups of only 13 (36%). The media, industry, and funding agency representatives, while widely‑targeted, were small groups. The public and professionals were substantial components of the audiences of which they were a part.

Funding

The magazines in this group were most commonly supported through funding from a research‑related entity like an office for research. Financial support also came from outside sources (such as state and federal grants), foundation dollars, and specific university departments or colleges. Only three magazines were funded through subscriptions. More than 70% of the magazines’ funding had increased or stayed the same through the publication’s life span. Most of the budget increases were in response to magazine needs or to inflation and rising costs. Where they decreased, it was because of a general tightening of university funds or a trend toward cost effectiveness.

Magazine Approach and Respondents’ Perspectives on Popular Style

When asked to indicate where their magazine fell on a continuum between four pairs of descriptors, most editors characterized their publications as eye‑catching rather than subdued (78% vs. 8%), and lay‑level rather than scholarly (61% vs. 39%). Just over half of them (55%) said their magazines were serious, while 41% described them as fun. More editors surmised their magazines to be non‑technical (45%) rather than technical (15%), but nearly one‑third of the answers to this category were neutral (31%).

Editors and administrators also used a Likert scale to indicate their opinions on six statements about consumer‑oriented, or “popularly‑styled” university research magazines. Popularly‑styled publications were defined as “those that use dynamic graphics, prominent photos, vivid writing, and relatively large amounts of color.” Survey recipients were asked to think of “a typical newsstand magazine, like Discover or Health” as an example. In responses that ranged from strongly agree to strongly disagree, more than 80% of respondents indicated they disagreed with the following statements: that popularly‑styled magazines trivialize scholarly research (83% administrators, 94% editors), that they are inappropriate for a university (86% administrators and editors), or that university research magazines should avoid a popular style (90% administrators, 83% editors). Respondents agreed that popularly‑styled magazines are an excellent way to inform the public about university research (90% administrators, 63% editors) and that a popular magazine style attracts audiences more effectively than a less popular style (87% administrators, 86% editors). A plurality of respondents disagreed with the statement that popularly‑styled magazines cost too much (47% administrators, 61% editors), a few agreed with this statement (26% administrators, 11% editors), and about a quarter were neutral.

Perceived Advantages of University Research Magazines

In a similar, Likert‑scale section, editors and administrators were asked whether they strongly agreed, agreed, were neutral, disagreed, or strongly disagreed with three statements comparing university research magazines to the mass media. A substantial majority (93% of administrators and 83% of editors) perceived that university research magazines present the institution’s mission better than the media. About three‑quarters of respondents (77% of administrators and 73% of editors) thought university research magazines cover science news more accurately than the media, while a similar proportion (73% of administrators and 75% of editors) perceived that scientists trust university writers more than reporters.

At institutions that had university research magazines in addition to other forms of communication, respondents were asked why research magazines a worthwhile added expense. The general consensus was that the research magazine offered a unique opportunity to put out in‑depth information about the scientific discovery process and the university’s research mission. Many thought this information was either unavailable or poorly covered elsewhere, including by these institutions’ own alumni publications, general interest magazines, and news bureaus. Despite these perceptions, less than half of the editors used readership surveys to measure the success with which their magazines met their communication goals. Most gauged magazine success by anecdotal feedback, including that from their administrators, word of mouth, letters to the editor, and awards.

Administrative Involvement and Editorial Freedom

One‑third of the magazines had an editorial or advisory board, two‑thirds of which included an administrator. These administrators were highly involved in their magazines. Half of the group (50%) advised editors as to magazine content and focus. Although most of their duties were supervisory, a substantial number of administrators had direct approval power. Nearly half the administrators reviewed content, generated story ideas, or decided which stories ran in the magazine. At more than a quarter of these institutions, final article approval was primarily the administrator’s responsibility rather than the editor’s.

Despite the high degree of direct administrative involvement, editors’ perceptions of editorial freedom were high. More than 85% of editors said they had total or substantial freedom, and almost 75% said they didn’t have to justify their magazine or its format to their supervisors. Editors perceived that substantial liberty enhanced the quality of their magazines and allowed their staff to write interesting stories relevant to their readers. They reported a general feeling that university magazines with limited editorial freedom are dull, parochial, and dominated by fundraising considerations, administrative agendas, or campus policies. They also indicated that having editorial control was necessary to achieve journalistic standards of balance and to ensure the credibility of their magazines.

Magazine Purpose

Half of the magazines had a written mission statement. In their response to the question, “What do you see as the purpose of this magazine?” most editors and administrators emphasized general communication goals, such as increasing public awareness of science, rather than specific gains to the university, such as attracting funding, faculty, or students. In their responses to several open‑ended questions, editors and administrators indicated that the purposes of university research magazines were to disseminate information about the university and its research activity, to educate the public, to enhance interest in science, and to entertain people. Administrators indicated their publications were important to the university because they could attract monetary support, but also because they help people understand the role of the university in society.

When editors and administrators were asked to rank their five most important objectives from a list of 11 possible goals, 2 top priorities emerged: promoting general awareness of university research, and showing people what science and scholarly activity are all about (see Figure 9). Garnering funds and attracting faculty and students were one of the five most important goals at only half the institutions. Administrators ranked updating alumni, garnering monetary support, and providing story ideas for media higher than did editors (Figure 11). Editors ranked attracting faculty or students and entertainment more important than did administrators.

Pie in the Sky: If You Could Change Anything, What Would it Be?

When asked what they would change if it were in their power to change anything about their magazine, more than half the editors responded with wishes encompassing enhanced magazine reach or quality. Editors wanted more pages, increased frequency, a broader audience, improved design, expanded coverage, and a larger budget. A few indicated they wanted more editorial freedom, and many emphasized the need for more staff.

Editors’ Philosophies on University Research Magazines

Editors’ perspectives on university research magazines were broad, but they generally showed a belief in the ability of research magazines to take their message to the public. Editors noted that, if done well, university research magazines are one of the best means of communicating about science and the university’s research mission. One editor even defined a good magazine as one that takes a popularly‑styled approach. Several editors indicated many of the research magazine genre could be improved by removing self‑promotional, institutional cheerleading content. These respondents largely felt that parochialism damages magazine credibility.

Conclusions

One of the major purposes of this study was to investigate the extent to which university research magazines were viewed, and therefore published, as public relations instruments versus sources of news and information. Several sources suggest that a focus on institutional concerns dampens a publication’s penetration into the psyche of a consumer audience, which will tune out in reaction to overtly promotional messages. There is an implied tension between editors, who presumably value “journalistically pure” objectives, and administrators, who apparently favor self‑serving puffery. Thus, the message has been that editorial freedom is essential to effective, quality publication, and that the most successful university magazines will be those whose belly‑gazing administrators keep their bodies out of the communication kitchen (Cleveland, 1991; LaSalle, 1991).

If that is true, then this group of magazines is well on its way to success. But not because the administrators were necessarily “hands‑off” supervisors. The audience, content, and stated objectives of these magazines reflected a largely external focus: the general public was among the three largest audience groups, and alumni or campus news was seldom one of the most often‑featured editorial items. Both editors and administrators indicated their primary goal was to improve public awareness about research, while “internal” objectives like money‑seeking and recruitment took a back seat to more outwardly‑focused goals. This group of administrators seemed to recognize the importance of professionally produced, broadly targeted publications. Although they were highly involved in their magazines, that did not appear to affect the editors+ perceptions of their editorial freedom. This finding calls into question the conventional wisdom about an editor‑administrator dichotomy, which deserves further study. However, the high degree of administrative support found in this sample may not be indicative of the environment in which magazines at other institutions are produced. Three‑quarters of these magazines were published at universities with a Research I or II designation. Such institutions, by definition, give research a high priority, so it may not be surprising their editors and administrators similarly value communication emphasizing their mission of inquiry. However, anecdotal evidence gathered during this study indicates that financial restraints at several institutions is threatening university research magazines and that, even where money is plentiful, ideological support may hinge on political alliances. This study did not encompass research magazines of a tabloid format, and the effectiveness of these and other forms of communicating university research has yet to be comparatively studied. In light of the lack of data from readership surveys, it is apparent that those needing ammunition to prove their publications’ worth have few resources other than verbal persuasion.

However, this study showed that decision‑makers at institutions which emphasize research greatly value specialized publications. These editors and administrators perceived that university research magazines can increase public awareness about universities and the scholarly activity that takes place there. The fact that those at the forefront of the research community hold such opinions is a model for science communication by institutions at every level of inquiry.

The conclusions of the study are summarized below:

+ Editors and administrators at universities with serious research interests perceive that university research magazines cover science more accurately, present the university’s mission better, and have more credibility with scientist‑sources than the mass media.

+ Editors and administrators at universities with serious research interests agree considerably about the purposes of university research magazines. In general, they rank general awareness as a high priority and attracting funds, students, or faculty as low.

+ Administrators at universities with serious research interests afford their editors a high degree of freedom and give their research magazines a great deal of support, both financial and moral. These administrators believe strongly in the link between the research magazine’s mission and the university’s.

+ Administrators can be highly involved in institutional publications without necessarily compromising an editor’s freedom.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cleveland, C. (1991). Grub street in the groves of academe. Gannett Center Journal: Higher Education in the Information Age, 5: 93‑103. Harris, L. (1993, Spring). Science News: What does the public want? SIPIscope, pp. 2‑10.

Keller, G. (1985). Universities and information about research: The new agenda. In V. G. Carter Smith & P. LaSalle Alberger (Eds.), Communicating University Research, (pp. 107‑114). Washington, DC: Council for the Advancement and Support of Education.

Krieghbaum, H. (1959). Public interest in science news. Science, 129, 1092‑1095.

LaSalle, P. A. (1991). College and University Magazines: Building Credibility to Advance Your Institution. Council for the Advancement and Support of Education: Washington.

Nunn, C. Z. (1979). Readership and coverage of science and technology in newspapers. Journalism Quarterly, 56 [Spring], 27‑30.