Why STEM struggles to talk about impact
What gets measured shapes the culture of STEM communication
I’ve been writing about communicating the impact of your STEM work forever now. But today, I took a step back and realised that something more culturally profound might be at the root of the problem.
What if we measured the real impact of STEM work in the world? How would the way we communicate science and technology change?
What gets measured gets attention. What gets attention gets centred. Centred in the culture of STEM.
Let’s look at the case of STEM academia.
As a researcher, what’s important to measure? The number of grants, publications, their index, citations, number of PhD students under you, awards. That’s a lot of different ways to make up rankings and compare ‘clean’ numbers.
But what would matter to you, both as a person working in STEM and as a recipient of the benefits of scientific work?
Now, before anyone writes to me: I am not saying that publications and citations do not matter. They absolutely do. Scientific impact matters, and many discoveries only reveal their wider societal value years or even decades later.
But these metrics are still proxies. They measure how research travels through the scientific community, not necessarily how it affects people’s lives.
And that got me thinking.
If we have very few ways to recognise and discuss the impact of research on policies, communities, industries, safety, health, or quality of life, then it is no surprise that these aspects often stay in the background (when we talk about science).
No wonder why only too few STEM professionals can articulate the added value of their work. If you are rarely asked to think about impact, how could you be expected to communicate it?
Even as a PhD student, what counts toward the degree is the number of papers, conference proceedings, and talks. Not their quality, not really. And definitely not their societal impact.
You may frown at this point and rightfully think that it would be too early to realistically measure the impact of a PhD project and its results. Maybe. I honestly don’t have a solution to this part. But I am convinced that it lays a strong foundation for how we learn to think about success in STEM.
The metrics we are surrounded by shape the stories we tell about our work.
So what if we measured the contribution of scientific and technical projects not only through citations, but also through the communities they serve, the technologies they enable, the policies they inform, or the lives they improve?
I am sure that such measurements would directly translate into different narratives in STEM. How we communicate science is a direct consequence of what is expected from it.
If the focus shifted even partially towards the bigger picture and benefits, I am sure that science folks would find it easier to talk about the impact of their work. And from impact naturally comes the discussion about limitations. And that builds trust in science.
Want to continue reading about bringing trust back to science? I wrote about it recently, and the article has been one of my most popular so far. Here’s the link: How to bring trust back to science.
What do you think about other parts of STEM? I took the example of academia today (largely based on my European experiences with it). What’s your experience? Drop it in the comments.
Your Coach,
Yulia
I don't know about STEM alone, but in STEAM, where art is part of the equation, we struggle with this too. In the arts, success is often measured by exhibitions, grants, publications, or attendance numbers, while the deeper impacts, shifts in perspective, community connection, healing, empathy, and civic engagement, are much harder to quantify. What gets measured shapes what gets valued, and too often the most meaningful outcomes fall outside the metrics.
Very nicely written. While I agree, it is incredibly hard to measure impact if we do not have objective, tangible parameters, particularly in the (vastly) quantitative research we do in STEM.