August 2022
The following Q&A is one in an occasional series of conversations with policy and opinion leaders with an interest in and commitment to education research. Rick Seltzer is senior editor at Higher Ed Dive. He has worked as an editor and reporter covering higher education, finance, leadership, and business beats as well as state government for several trade publications and daily newspapers. He can be reached at rseltzer@industrydive.com.
Q. What factors do you consider when determining whether a new research study is worth covering?
First, we ask whether the research is new, groundbreaking or could be of substantial use to our target audience. That target audience is the decision-makers at colleges—mostly from deans up to governing board members, plus interested policymakers.
That’s a sophisticated group, and they’re grappling with complicated questions. So we really need to dig into the research to know if it’s new or helpful. Sometimes very nuanced findings or even data that support existing ideas can be important for us to cover.
Once we know if the research passes the topical bar, we make sure to evaluate whether it has the quality to merit coverage.
Q. How do you decide if research is of high enough quality to cover?
We’ll do this a few different ways. If it’s from a peer-reviewed journal or other highly trusted source, we know we can generally feel better about it. But we still look under the hood to evaluate important factors like sample size and research design, to the extent possible.
If something is not peer reviewed—say it’s an NBER [National Bureau of Economic Research] working paper or a preprint or even from a private company—we have to do more work, in deciding both whether to cover it and how to cover it. We’ll look at the same important factors like sample size and research design, and we will likely try to bring in an outside expert to help us evaluate it.
In those harder cases, we spend a lot of time and energy making sure we cast the research in the most appropriate light. What context do we need to add so that the reader knows the findings’ limitations? When should we cast it as raising more questions about a topic or practice, rather than providing answers? Are we sure we’re effectively communicating how researchers arrived at their conclusions and where reasonable doubts remain?
We also can’t be afraid to scrap a story if we find major concerns during the evaluation process.
Q. What education issues are especially newsworthy right now? Which ones do you see emerging over the next six months or year? What questions related to those issues lend themselves to education research?
I’m sure it’s no surprise, but anything related to the pandemic comes to mind first.
For higher ed, I think the questions of which students didn’t enroll in college, delayed enrollment, or didn’t persist, and why, are among the easiest to ask and hardest to answer. We have so many issues tied to that: student and adult well-being, institutional finances, program design, program modality, the economy, financial aid, and I could go on and on.
How do you encourage students to come back or enroll in greater numbers? What strategies serve adult students well? Which types of institutions will serve them best? What was tried out of necessity during the pandemic that’s worth keeping?
I also think a number of issues not directly tied to the pandemic are extremely important right now. How do students pay for college, and how are colleges spending to educate students? What else can we learn about college as a driver of or barrier to economic opportunity, and for whom? As we continue to talk about loan forgiveness, what else can we learn about the federal loan portfolio that might inform better policy in the future?
Q. What advice do you have for researchers and other science communicators to make research findings more accessible to reporters and other non-researchers?
The most helpful thing you can do is write clearly and avoid jargon, at very least in summaries and abstracts. I think clearly communicating a finding and details about research before a journalist ever sees it will do more to increase the chances that your work will help someone than anything I can do in the newsgathering process.
A close second is being patient, available, and willing to answer questions. We love to interview smart people and untangle the complicated work they do. But if they’re not responding to queries, we often can’t do their work justice.
Q. What are some best practices researchers and science communicators should consider when pitching research?
Pitching to the right person is important. If a person or publication hasn’t covered the broad topic you’re researching, it may not be a good fit. And if it somehow were to be a good fit, you might have to frame the research in different terms to be sure you’re communicating how important it is or exactly what it’s doing.
I also recommend including a paragraph or two that tells me the five Ws about the research itself: Who participated, what was done and how, when it was performed, where it took place, and why. This can be a huge boost, even if that information is in the research paper somewhere.
Q. Is there anything you would like to add?
I very much appreciate the work researchers do. I’m constantly amazed at their perseverance and creativity.
Unfortunately, journalists don’t always have the time or depth of knowledge we’d like to have when we’re trying to digest your work. In my experience, researchers are incredibly patient and responsive. I’d just like to say thank you for that, and I hope it continues, because it lets us do better work, which ultimately benefits everyone.