International Journal of Social Sciences and Management Review

RECONCEPTUALISING AUDIENCE IN ACADEMIC SCHOLARSHIP: NAVIGATING THE COMPLEXITIES OF SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION AND INTENDED READERSHIP

Author: Paul Andrew Bourne, PhD, DrPH

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the idea of the intended audience in academic writing. It explores the various layers of readership involved in creating scholarly work. The paper demonstrates that academic authors frequently envision their audience as peers in their field. At the same time, they must deal with institutional expectations, policy implications, and the need for public engagement. Drawing on theories from the sociology of knowledge and scholarly communication, the study challenges the choices scholars make regarding their audience. It also examines how these choices influence the production, presentation, and reception of knowledge. By reviewing existing literature, this paper highlights the challenges of writing for peers, fulfilling institutional performance goals, and reaching a broader audience. The study critically analyses how neoliberal pressures are changing academic output. This matter focuses on impact metrics and the push for open-access publishing. Additionally, it considers how digital platforms and decolonial approaches are broadening and diversifying scholarly audiences.

Keywords: academic writing, audience, scholarly communication, public scholarship, epistemology

REFERENCES

• Anderson, D., & McDougall, J. (2015). Digital literacy and academic writing: Exploring the potential of multimodal writing practices in higher education. Routledge.
• Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. University of Wisconsin Press.
• Bhambra, G. K. (2014). Postcolonial and decolonial dialogues. Postcolonial Studies, 17(2), 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/13688790.2014.966414
• Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo academicus (P. Collier, Trans.). Stanford University Press.
• Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate—Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
• Boyer, E. L. (1996). The scholarship of engagement. Journal of Public Service and Outreach, 1(1), 11–20
• Burawoy, M. (2005). For public sociology. American Sociological Review, 70(1), 4–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240507000102
• Canagarajah, A. S. (2002). A geopolitics of academic writing. University of Pittsburgh Press.
• Canagarajah, A. S. (2013). Translingual Practice: Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations. Routledge.
• Collini, S. (2012). What are universities for? Penguin UK.
• Connell, R. (2007). Southern theory: The global dynamics of knowledge in social science. Polity Press.
• De Sousa Santos, B. (2014). Epistemologies of the South: Justice against epistemicide. Routledge.
• Fitzpatrick, K. (2019). Generous thinking: A radical approach to saving the university. Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse: English in a global context. Continuum.
• Hyland, K. (2019). Second language writing (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
• Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and Identity: The Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic Writing. John Benjamins Publishing.
• Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
• Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079812331380364
• Lillis, T. (2001). Student writing: Access, regulation, desire. Routledge.
• Lillis, T., & Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic writing in a global context: The politics and practices of publishing in English. Routledge.
• Macdonald, S. (1994). Professional academic writing in the humanities and social sciences. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
• Mignolo, W. D., & Walsh, C. E. (2018). On decoloniality: Concepts, analytics, praxis. Duke University Press.
• Moore, S. (2013). Measuring research: What do citation metrics tell us? Research Trends, 33, 6–9.
• Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S. J. (2018). Epistemic freedom in Africa: Deprovincialization and decolonisation. Routledge.
• Nichols, T. (2017). The death of expertise: The campaign against established knowledge and why it matters. Oxford University Press.
• Nussbaum, M. C. (2010). Not for profit: Why democracy needs the humanities. Princeton University Press.
• Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Routledge.
• REF (Research Excellence Framework). (2021). Guidance on submissions. https://www.ref.ac.uk/guidance
• Santos, B. de S. (2014). Epistemologies of the South: Justice against epistemicide. Routledge.
• Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Small, H. (2013). The value of the humanities. Oxford University Press.
• Smith, L. T. (2021). Decolonising methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples (3rd ed.). Zed Books.
• Suber, P. (2012). Open access. MIT Press.
• Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
• Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.58
• Tollefson, J. W., & Tsui, A. B. M. (2018). Language Policy and the Politics of Diversity in Education. Routledge.
• Weller, K. (2011). The digital scholar: How technology is transforming scholarly practice. Bloomsbury Academic.