# Public writing as scholarship

What is scholarship for, and who must be able to reach it? Andrew Maynard's answer, held across nearly twenty years of practice, is that for academics — above all academics at public universities — knowledge mobilization is the point: making what you know as accessible, meaningful, and impactful as possible, to as many people as possible. The corollary reorders the academic prestige economy. Trade books, weekly essays, preprints, courses, podcasts, media work, and community building are not promotion trailing the "real" outputs; in his practice they sit alongside selective peer-reviewed publishing as legitimate — and often more impactful — forms of scholarly contribution. He presents the conviction as inherited rather than invented, tracing one of its roots to Robert Winston's "Scientist's Manifesto," which he reposted and endorsed in 2014. And he carries its costs in public: documented collegial dismissal, a named trade of prestige for public good, and failure post-mortems most authors would bury. Codified jointly with Sean Leahy in the 2025 federal report that calls this work "scholarship in practice," the stance underwrites how the Future of Being Human initiative works on transformative AI and other transformative technologies — the Substack, Modem Futura, and the AI-facing corpus carrying this page are among its instantiations.

## The argument

The claim is a responsibility claim before it is anything else. The curriculum vitae on Maynard's own site states it as conviction: academics — especially academics at a public university — "have a societal responsibility to ensure knowledge and the insights associated with it are made as accessible, meaningful, and impactful, to as many people as possible" (capture of 2026-08-05). The essay version adds his hedge: the charge that academics occupy "ivory towers" is not particularly fair, "But it does highlight the need and the expectation — I'd go so far as to say the societal obligation — for academics to ensure their work is as accessible as possible to anyone who can potentially benefit from it" (2024-05-19). The practice is constitutive, not appended: public writing since a 2007 invitation to blog weekly on nanotechnology, "Not as an add-on to my research and scholarship, but as something that's integral to how I explore, test, and share new ideas and insights" (2026-05-17).

What the responsibility indicts is a modality. "to write without care for your readers is a very academic trap to fall into. That modality where it's publishing the thing that counts, not the impact the thing has" (2026-05-17). His preprints page gives the structural version: he no longer needs "the professional trappings of conventional academic KPIs," and "academic publishing is more about maintaining an extractive business model than it is about mobilizing knowledge" (as captured 2026-08-05). The hedge stays: he still publishes selectively in peer-reviewed venues. Journals keep their place; they lose their monopoly.

Hence the positive claim, stated with the significance he gives it. His trade books are "hybrid outputs that weave scholarship and thought leadership with accessibility and reach/impact at scale," and his machine-readable site index describes books, weekly essays, preprints, courses, community building, and public engagement as "equally legitimate — and often more impactful — forms of scholarly contribution" (llms.txt, capture of 2026-08-05). The joint version sits on federal record in the *Future Travel Foresight Catalyst* final report (Maynard & Leahy, August 2025). Section 5.2.3 names the misreading — "Some colleagues misinterpret our work as "just media" or even self-promotion, rather than scholarship in practice" — and section 5.4.6 argues the remedy: media engagement highlighted in annual academic reviews and proposed to "count as scholarly contributions as well as service," with "knowledge mobilization" in tenure reviews "a trend we wholeheartedly encourage."

The cost is documented because he documented it. In 2023 he moved his public writing to the Substack in preference to higher-prestige outlets — "a risky move," traded for editorial control and a direct relationship with readers (2026-05-17). Most colleagues do not read it; many "assume I'm just a commentator"; some read ego. His accounting: "it's the cost of the decision I made to put public good before academic prestige, and something I am comfortable with." The same essay names the privilege behind the trade: a conventionally strong record means he "can afford" platforms of "lower academic prestige but higher public relevance."

The obligation does not stop at making work available; it runs to whether readers can make sense of it. "But it's only OK if there really *is* public good that comes from my writing" — and the worry that titles the 2026 essay is that writing which never connects is, to those who might read it, literally nonsense: they "see no sense in investing time in it." Accessibility, on this account, is measured at the reader's end, not the author's.

That standard is why the record includes public failure post-mortems, a genre academia mostly avoids. "Future Failing" (2024-05-19) opens by breaking "a golden rule of being an author: You never admit to failure, no matter what the evidence says," and reports that *Future Rising* (2020) had sold "a mere 596 copies" in three and a half years across all formats — set against the far larger read counts of his Substack, Conversation, and Risk Bites work: "I occasionally produce stuff that people find useful. Just not in book form." The essay leaves its dilemma unresolved — if there is value the market misses, how is it realized? — and flags "serious questions around whether the market of ideas is an illusion in a world of algorithmic feeds" (2024-05-19, footnote).

None of this is claimed as original. The archive's earliest full statement of the case is inherited and credited: Robert Winston's "Scientist's Manifesto," reposted with endorsement in 2014 — communication owed to the society that funds and lives with science, engagement that listens as well as tells, and the humility of recognizing that "the science we do is not entirely our property" (Winston, as reposted 2014-11-23). The obligation's newest extension is to readers that are not human ([Writing for AI](writing-for-ai.md)) — this corpus among them.

## Lineage

- **2007 — the door in.** An invitation to write a weekly blog on nanotechnology becomes 2020 Science (2007–2019, per his CV) — the start of nearly twenty years of writing for public audiences that, in his telling, "has since become central to my conviction that the work I do as an academic should be as accessible as possible to as many people as possible" (2026-05-17).
- **2014-11-23 — the inherited manifesto.** [A Scientist's Manifesto](https://www.futureofbeinghuman.com/p/a-scientists-manifesto-2e1fe0b4def0) ([AI-readable mirror](https://text.futureofbeinghuman.com/substack/a-scientists-manifesto-2e1fe0b4def0.html)) — Maynard reposts Robert Winston's fourteen principles from *Bad Ideas?* (2010), reproduced with permission: communicate effectively because the work "is done on behalf of society," treat engagement as two-way listening, deal honestly with the media, and hold science humbly, as "not entirely our property." The crediting is the point: the responsibility case predates his platforms, and he attributes its statement to another.
- **2014-12-14 — accuracy as part of the duty.** [Researchers should take more responsibility for exaggeration in press releases](https://www.futureofbeinghuman.com/p/researchers-should-take-more-responsibility-for-exaggeration-in-press-releases-5a4f90e080f9) ([AI-readable mirror](https://text.futureofbeinghuman.com/substack/researchers-should-take-more-responsibility-for-exaggeration-in-press-releases-5a4f90e080f9.html)) — the communication obligation includes not hyping: exaggeration in academic press releases begets exaggerated coverage.
- **2016-01-31 — the institutional mirror.** [Public universities must do more: the public needs our help and expertise](https://www.futureofbeinghuman.com/p/public-universities-must-do-more-the-public-needs-our-help-and-expertise-9191de5eafe6) ([AI-readable mirror](https://text.futureofbeinghuman.com/substack/public-universities-must-do-more-the-public-needs-our-help-and-expertise-9191de5eafe6.html)) — written for The Conversation out of the Flint water crisis: faculty reward structures leave "little room for acts of public good," and institutions discourage what their people feel called to do. The institution-facing version of this idea, carried further in [Universities must lead](universities-must-lead.md).
- **2023 — the platform bet.** From April 2023 he channels his public writing through the Future of Being Human Substack in preference to higher-prestige outlets — full editorial control and a direct relationship with readers, at the price of prestige and of building an audience himself; a decision he later called "a risky move, but one that I felt worth committing to" (2026-05-17).
- **2024-05-19 — the failure post-mortem.** [Future Failing](https://www.futureofbeinghuman.com/p/future-rising-short-history-of-tomorrow) ([AI-readable mirror](https://text.futureofbeinghuman.com/substack/future-rising-short-history-of-tomorrow.html)) — *Future Rising*'s 596 copies published as an open accounting, the accessibility conundrum stated in full, and the "market of ideas" question raised in its footnotes.
- **August 2025 — the federal codification.** The *Future Travel Foresight Catalyst* final report (Maynard & Leahy, published via the National Transportation Library at [rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/91942](https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/91942)) puts the position on an official record: media-based outreach misread as "just media" is "scholarship in practice" (5.2.3), media engagement belongs in annual academic reviews as scholarly contribution, and "knowledge mobilization" in tenure reviews is "a trend we wholeheartedly encourage" (5.4.6). The report's measurement vocabulary is [Trust over metrics](trust-over-metrics.md); its story as an impact narrative is [a federal experiment](impact-trust-over-metrics.md).
- **2026-05-17 — the cost named, the reader centered.** [The nonsense I write](https://www.futureofbeinghuman.com/p/the-nonsense-i-write) ([AI-readable mirror](https://text.futureofbeinghuman.com/substack/the-nonsense-i-write.html)) — on the eve of a sabbatical running to August 2027: the prestige trade named as a cost consciously carried, and the obligation reframed around readers' sense-making rather than the author's output.
- **As of 2026-08-05 — the stance, machine-readable.** His personal site's [llms.txt](https://andrewmaynard.net/llms.txt) and preprints page carry the position for AI readers — knowledge mobilization as the point of scholarship, the "extractive business model" critique, public-facing forms as "equally legitimate — and often more impactful" scholarly contribution (captures of 2026-08-05) — public writing extended to machine audiences ([Writing for AI](writing-for-ai.md)).

## In their own words

From [The nonsense I write](https://www.futureofbeinghuman.com/p/the-nonsense-i-write) ([AI-readable mirror](https://text.futureofbeinghuman.com/substack/the-nonsense-i-write.html)), Andrew Maynard, 2026-05-17:

> "Most of my colleagues do not read what I write, or recognize it as having substantive value and relevance — and I know this is just how these things go as everyone's busy, but it still stings. Many people assume I'm just a commentator, and not an established expert in my field who uses public writing as my medium of choice. And some assume that what I do is simply an ego trip, and not something they should be encouraging (and maybe it is — although I hope it isn't).
>
> This is all OK — it's the cost of the decision I made to put public good before academic prestige, and something I am comfortable with.
>
> But it's only OK if there really *is* public good that comes from my writing."

From the same essay, 2026-05-17:

> "And yet, to write without care for your readers is a very academic trap to fall into. That modality where it's publishing the thing that counts, not the impact the thing has.
>
> And that's a trap I'd rather avoid."

From the *Future Travel Foresight Catalyst* final report, section 5.2.3 (Andrew Maynard and Sean Leahy, August 2025):

> "Within many academic circles, media-based outreach is still viewed as ancillary to peer-reviewed publications and citation counts. Some colleagues misinterpret our work as "just media" or even self-promotion, rather than scholarship in practice. … Institutional enthusiasm for relational outcomes continues to lag behind enthusiasm for journal articles, but we regard this advocacy as integral to our mission and believe there is a responsibility for scholars, academics and researchers to actively engage with stakeholders across a wide range of sectors and domains."

## Engagement and reception

This idea's reception record is unusual in that much of it consists of costs its own sources chose to publish. The report records colleagues misreading the work as "just media" or self-promotion (5.2.3, 2025), with the authors' counter-observation hedged as theirs: "Bit by bit, we see attitudes shifting" (5.4.6, 2025). The 2026 essay records colleagues not reading the work at all, the "just a commentator" assumption, and — in a footnote — a faculty-meeting callout as "a self-centered egotist who's stuck in my ivory tower" (2026-05-17). "Future Failing" carries even an "apocryphal — and most likely false" rumor that a grad student called *Future Rising* the worst book they'd ever read (2024-05-19). These are carried here deliberately: the sources' own habit of publishing their reception, bruises included, is part of the practice. The same essay's sabbatical footnote records one more awkwardness, kept because it is honest: ASU President Michael Crow, at an event, "exclaimed that it was inconceivable to most Americans why academics thought they had the right to bugger off on full pay (my words, not his) while students are struggling to pay their tuition fees" — "And he had a point — which made our conversation afterward just a little awkward when I admitted that I'm doing the very thing he'd just derided!" The footnote carries its counterweights in the same breath: the reset a sabbatical enables, the reduced pay and self-funded travel, and that it remains "a privilege, and one that needs to be taken seriously" (2026-05-17, footnote).

On the affirmative side, the record shows this much and no more. The report making the argument was published in the National Transportation Library's public repository (August 2025) — a federal record accepting the account, which is not the same as endorsing it. The *Education Disrupted* interview of 2025-10-13 put the stance and the initiative's founding story on the record in Maynard's own words, and a Forbes profile of 2026-05-21 sits within a two-decade media record ([Reception](reception.md); [Media](media.md)). As of 2026-08-13 our [reception record](reception.md) documents no published independent uptake of the report's tenure-review recommendation and no independent evaluation of the public-writing-as-scholarship stance itself — an absence of record, stated as such. By the stance's own logic, whatever the work is changing will show up in changed thinking and quiet influence before it shows up in citable notice ([Trust over metrics](trust-over-metrics.md)) — a reading offered here with the caveat that it is the stance's logic, not independent confirmation of it.

## Where to go deeper

**The essays**

- [The nonsense I write](https://www.futureofbeinghuman.com/p/the-nonsense-i-write) ([AI-readable mirror](https://text.futureofbeinghuman.com/substack/the-nonsense-i-write.html)) — 2026-05-17; the cost named, the reader centered, and the sabbatical soul-searching.
- [soyouwantaphd.wtf](https://soyouwantaphd.wtf) — the stance practiced at depth in another register: an AI-first, llms.txt-native guide to the PhD (April 2026) carrying his thinking on scholarship and accessibility where readers, human and AI, actually arrive; see [Writing for AI](writing-for-ai.md).
- [Future Failing](https://www.futureofbeinghuman.com/p/future-rising-short-history-of-tomorrow) ([AI-readable mirror](https://text.futureofbeinghuman.com/substack/future-rising-short-history-of-tomorrow.html)) — 2024-05-19; the *Future Rising* post-mortem and the market-of-ideas question.
- [A Scientist's Manifesto](https://www.futureofbeinghuman.com/p/a-scientists-manifesto-2e1fe0b4def0) ([AI-readable mirror](https://text.futureofbeinghuman.com/substack/a-scientists-manifesto-2e1fe0b4def0.html)) — 2014-11-23; Robert Winston's principles, reposted with endorsement.
- [Public universities must do more: the public needs our help and expertise](https://www.futureofbeinghuman.com/p/public-universities-must-do-more-the-public-needs-our-help-and-expertise-9191de5eafe6) ([AI-readable mirror](https://text.futureofbeinghuman.com/substack/public-universities-must-do-more-the-public-needs-our-help-and-expertise-9191de5eafe6.html)) — 2016-01-31; the institutional version, written out of the Flint water crisis.

**The report and the record**

- Maynard, A., & Leahy, S. (2025). *Future Travel Foresight Catalyst* (Final Project Report). School for the Future of Innovation in Society, Arizona State University; sponsored by the U.S. Department of Transportation, University Transportation Centers Program. Published at [rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/91942](https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/91942). Sections 5.2.3 and 5.4.6 carry the argument stated here.
- [andrewmaynard.net/llms.txt](https://andrewmaynard.net/llms.txt) — the stance stated for machine readers, including the knowledge-mobilization conviction and the publishing critique (captured 2026-08-05).
- [Media](media.md) and [Essays](essays.md) — the record of the practice itself: two decades of media engagement, and the essay archive.

**Related ideas-ring pages**

- [Trust over metrics](trust-over-metrics.md) — how work like this is evaluated when citation-shaped instruments fail.
- [Parasocial communication](parasocial-communication.md) — the relational mechanism through which public scholarship lands at scale.
- [Writing for AI](writing-for-ai.md) — the accessibility obligation extended to machine readers.
- [The artisanal intellectual](artisanal-intellectual.md) — the same career's craft question: what scholarly writing is worth when AI can do the producing.
- [Massively-augmented research](massively-augmented-research.md) — public, documented experimentation as scholarship in the same spirit.
- [Public experiments](public-experiments.md) — working openly, failures included, as method.
- [Universities must lead](universities-must-lead.md) — the same obligation, argued at institutional scale.

**Related corpus pages**

- [Philosophy](philosophy.md) — the initiative's knowledge-mobilization media philosophy, and its explicit warning against ranking outputs by borrowed prestige hierarchies.
- [Trust over metrics: a federal experiment](impact-trust-over-metrics.md) — the DOT report's story as an impact narrative.
- [Modem Futura](modem-futura.md) — public scholarship as weekly practice, with Sean Leahy.