A year ago, I started this column on the premise that the public wants what scholars know and scholars want to share it, but a gap exists between the two. So I asked op-ed editors, literary agents, book editors and scholars who’ve done this work well about how to close that divide. I thought I’d collect a grab bag of tips, and I did. But I also found that breaking through takes two things, and a lot of advice offers only one.
One half of breaking through concerns practicalities. This is a solvable information problem, as many gatekeepers publish clear pitch guidelines about what an op-ed or book proposal must accomplish. Some promising public scholarship sits unwritten because academics forget to look up how to open the gate.
The other half is less concrete. Historian Heather Cox Richardson, author of the Letters From an American newsletter, suggested that scholars need to remember how to teach an audience that has no obligation to keep listening. The idea resonated for me, as I still test my drafts by summoning my decade of teaching, especially those students who did not tolerate poor exposition or boredom. One former student, Michael, never hesitated to blurt out, “Professor, you’re not making any sense!” Another, Jennifer, who was more reticent, showed on her face how much or little she understood. They wanted to understand and feel wonder, like another student, Suman, who could not conceal his delight the day he worked through a rigorous proof that 1 + 1 = 2. So, before submitting my drafts today, I ask, Would Michael have spoken up? Would Jennifer have looked confused? Would Suman have grinned? Then, I revise accordingly.
