A year ago, I launched this column with a simple, provocative premise: the public possesses an insatiable hunger for the rigorous knowledge held by scholars, and academics, in turn, harbor a deep-seated desire to share their expertise. Yet, despite this mutual interest, a persistent chasm remains. To bridge this divide, I turned to the industry’s gatekeepers—op-ed editors, literary agents, and seasoned book publishers—as well as the academics who have successfully navigated the transition from the lecture hall to the public sphere. I expected to curate a modest grab bag of tactical tips. Instead, I discovered that successfully breaking through the "ivory tower" requires the synthesis of two distinct, often conflicting skill sets. While much advice focuses on only one of these pillars, true public scholarship demands both. The Dual Architecture of Public Scholarship The challenge of reaching a broad audience can be broken down into two primary domains: the mechanical and the pedagogical. The Mechanical: Mastering the Gatekeepers One half of the equation concerns the practicalities of the publishing industry. This is a solvable information problem. Many editors and agents provide clear, accessible pitch guidelines outlining exactly what a submission needs to achieve. Far too much promising public scholarship remains unpublished simply because academics neglect to look up the instructions or ignore the specific requirements of the gatekeepers holding the keys. The Pedagogical: The Teaching Instinct The second half of the equation is more abstract. It requires the scholar to pivot from a classroom dynamic—where students are often a captive audience—to the unforgiving reality of the public sphere, where readers have no obligation to keep listening. As historian Heather Cox Richardson, the powerhouse behind the Letters From an American newsletter, suggests, scholars must learn to engage an audience that can click away at any moment. I often test my own drafts by summoning the ghosts of my former students. I think of Michael, who never hesitated to point out when my exposition failed to make sense; Jennifer, whose subtle facial expressions signaled confusion before she ever spoke; and Suman, who found genuine delight in the beauty of a rigorous proof. Before submitting any piece today, I ask myself: Would Michael have flagged this? Would Jennifer look lost? Would Suman have grinned? If the answer is no, I revise. A Chronological Roadmap for Aspiring Public Scholars Over the past year, this column has mapped the journey of the scholar-writer. Whether you are in the early stages of drafting or navigating the complexities of a book proposal, the following resources serve as a guide. Phase 1: Before You Write The greatest barrier to public scholarship is often internal. We convince ourselves that someone more credentialed or more eloquent should speak first. In “Don’t Wait for Permission to Write for the Public,” I addressed the imposter syndrome that keeps academics silent. Furthermore, because high-quality writing requires time and headspace, I compiled “32 Residencies to Fuel Your Writing Dreams,” highlighting spaces—many of them free—where scholars can cultivate the focus necessary for their craft. Phase 2: On Craft and Industry Standards Understanding the editorial process is non-negotiable. To demystify the op-ed, I spoke with Philip Gray of the Los Angeles Times in “What Makes a Great Op-Ed?” to unpack the editorial decision-making process. Complementing this, “How Op-Eds Play the Long Game of Persuasion” explored how opinion pieces can shift cultural needles even in our current, hyper-polarized landscape. For those pursuing book-length projects, Kayla Lightener provided a masterclass in “What Makes a Great Book Proposal? A Literary Agent Explains.” For an institutional perspective, I gathered candid insights from three university press editors—Daniel Taber-Hewett (Oxford), Diana Gillooly (Princeton), and Andrew Kinney (UNC)—in “3 University Press Editors, 6 Publishing Questions.” Finally, in “Why I Signed With the Literary Agent Who Didn’t Want My Book,” I shared my personal experience working with Marissa Koors, who pushed me to evolve my manuscript’s vision. Supporting Data: The Scholarly Perspective The transition to public writing is not just a professional hurdle; it is a psychological and pedagogical evolution. The Classroom as a Laboratory Historian David Perry noted in “Don’t Let Trolls Keep You Off the Op-Ed Page” that writing an op-ed is remarkably similar to teaching an 8:30 a.m. Monday class. However, he argues that the op-ed offers more agency. Unlike the classroom, where a student might misrepresent your lesson, the written word stands as a fixed, defensible record of your expertise. Civic Engagement as Intellectual Duty Political scientist Jonathan Becker has become a leading voice in modeling civic engagement for students. "If we take ourselves seriously as educators, and if the link between education and democracy is meaningful, then it is incumbent upon us to act," Becker wrote. He has since taken his own advice to the national stage, publishing critical work in The New York Times regarding the intersection of academic freedom and the 26th Amendment. Official Responses and Broader Implications The impact of these efforts is becoming increasingly clear. As the political landscape attempts to stifle academic dissent, scholars across economics, literature, law, and the sciences are pushing back. In “Trump Seeks to Silence Critics. These Scholars Are Pushing Back,” we documented how academics are using their platforms to inject nuance into consequential, high-stakes conversations. For many, this work is restorative. Scholars frequently report that the act of writing for the public rekindles the intellectual curiosity that originally drew them to their disciplines. The Philosophy of the Public Scholar Perhaps the most resonant sentiment from this year of exploration came from Heather Cox Richardson. Discussing her project, which reaches over three million subscribers, she noted: "The conceit of the entire project is that we, as human beings in the world in 2026, are all part of a conversation trying to ascertain what’s happening around us." This, I believe, is the truest definition of public scholarship. It is not about "dumbing down" research or merely disseminating facts. It is about participating in the collective human effort to make sense of our world. Moving Forward If you are currently navigating the dual process of treating public scholarship as a form of teaching while simultaneously mastering the logistical hurdles of the publishing industry, you are not alone. Your expertise is hard-won. It is the result of years of study, late nights in the lab, and stacks of research. When you share that knowledge, you are doing more than just building a portfolio; you are contributing to a more informed, nuanced public discourse. I invite you to stay in the conversation by signing up for the Public Scholar newsletter. Each month, I share behind-the-scenes writing tips, industry updates, and stories of academics who are finding their voices in the public square. What might happen if you shared your expertise more widely? The answer is only a pitch away. Susan D’Agostino is a mathematician whose work has appeared in The Atlantic, the BBC, Scientific American, The Washington Post, the L.A. Times, Wired, and Quanta. Her upcoming book, How Math Will Save Your Life, is forthcoming from W. W. Norton. Post navigation Ohio State University to Pay $2.1 Million Settlement Over Undisclosed Chinese Research Ties
