Scientists who engage with society perform better academically

Most scientific institutions acknowledge the importance of opening the so-called ‘ivory tower’ of academic research through popularization, industrial collaboration or teaching. However, little is known about the actual openness of scientific institutions and how their proclaimed priorities translate into concrete measures. This paper gives an idea of some actual practices by studying three key points: the proportion of researchers who are active in wider dissemination, the academic productivity of these scientists, and the institutional recognition of their wider dissemination activities in terms of their careers. We analyze extensive data about the academic production, career recognition and teaching or public/industrial outreach of several thousand of scientists, from many disciplines, from France’s Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. We find that, contrary to what is often suggested, scientists active in wider dissemination are also more active academically. However, their dissemination activities have almost no impact (positive or negative) on their careers.

💡 Research Summary

The paper investigates whether scientists who engage in activities that connect them with broader society—public outreach, industrial collaborations, and teaching—perform differently in academic productivity compared to their less‑engaged peers, and whether such engagement is recognized in career advancement. Using data from France’s Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), the authors assembled a comprehensive dataset covering 11,000 researchers over the three‑year period 2004‑2006. The primary source of dissemination activity information is the mandatory annual “Compte Rendu Annuel des Chercheurs” (CRAC) reports, in which scientists self‑report public talks, media interviews, collaborations with industry, and teaching hours. The authors acknowledge that self‑reporting may lead to under‑ or over‑estimation, but argue that the large sample size mitigates individual bias.

Bibliometric indicators were extracted from the Web of Science “Author Search” for the same individuals, yielding reliable records for 3,659 scientists after excluding social sciences (poor coverage) and high‑energy physics (incomplete records). The authors used several standard metrics: total number of papers, papers per year, total citations, the Hirsch index (h), and a career‑length‑adjusted h index (h_y = h / years of career). The latter was preferred because it normalizes for seniority while remaining relatively stable across ages.

Dissemination activity was categorized into three levels: inactive (no recorded activity), active (below a modest threshold: <10 public actions, <4 industrial contracts, or <210 teaching hours over three years), and very active (exceeding those thresholds). Approximately half of the CNRS scientists reported no public or industrial activity, while a small elite (about 5 %) accounted for roughly half of all recorded actions, indicating a highly skewed distribution.

The core findings are:

1. Higher Academic Output Among Engaged Scientists – Scientists who are active in any of the three dissemination domains have significantly higher bibliometric scores than inactive peers. For example, the average h_y for public outreach participants is 0.70 versus 0.62 for non‑participants; industrial collaborators average 0.71; teachers average 0.69. The average number of papers per year follows a similar pattern (2.38–2.45 for active groups versus 2.28 for inactive). All differences are statistically significant (p < 0.001).

2. Consistency Across Disciplines – When the analysis is stratified by CNRS scientific sections (physics, chemistry, life sciences, etc.), the positive association between dissemination and academic productivity persists, suggesting the effect is not driven by a few high‑performing fields.

3. Minimal Impact on Career Advancement – The proportion of scientists engaged in dissemination rises modestly with age and seniority, but promotion to higher CNRS grades (CR2 → CR1 → DR2 → DR1 → DRCE) does not substantially alter activity levels. In other words, the institutional evaluation and promotion system appears largely indifferent to outreach, industrial collaboration, or teaching contributions.

The authors discuss several limitations. The reliance on self‑reported CRAC data may miss informal outreach or overstate formal activities. Excluding social sciences and high‑energy physics limits the generalizability to the entire research community. Moreover, the study measures quantity of activity, not quality (e.g., audience size, media impact), and therefore cannot establish causality—whether more productive scientists simply have more time/energy to engage, or whether engagement itself stimulates productivity.

Despite these caveats, the study provides robust empirical evidence that the common belief—that scientists who “talk to the public” are academically weaker—is unfounded, at least within the CNRS context. The findings have clear policy implications: if institutions wish to encourage societal engagement, they should integrate such activities into formal evaluation criteria (promotion, grant allocation, salary bonuses). Recognizing and rewarding the small but highly active minority could also help distribute outreach more evenly across the research workforce. Finally, further qualitative work on the mechanisms linking outreach to productivity (e.g., broader networks, interdisciplinary collaborations, enhanced communication skills) would be valuable for designing effective science‑society programs.