Many political and humanities scholars do research that is of a similar type that journalists would do. Due to fewer restrictions (ie time) facing academics, they can often write more in-depth material. Why isn't academic research more commonly integrated in journalism? Why is there this gap between academia and journalism when they could be complementary? If this gap were to be reduced, it would also reduce the gap between academia and the general public.<p>This is just my impression and feel free to correct me if I am wrong. If it is true, however does anyone have any ideas and comments that can add to my understanding?<p>EDIT: Journalists do sometimes use (and summarise) academic articles, but I think this is not done frequently enough (particularly in social sciences). Instead what I have seen more commonly are academics writing in a journalistic style on newspapers.<p>Also does anyone know of a more relevant community I could ask this question on?
Not exactly the answer you are looking, but in my view:<p>Academic research is focused on extending / expanding the knowledge in a very specific and often narrow field. The papers are written for other scholars working in the same or related fields. The desired result is the amplification of knowledge in that field.<p>Journalists are focused on disseminating information on timely matters to a broad audience. When journalists report on material from academic papers, then need to translate the material so that non-specialists can comprehend the core concepts presented in the papers. In order to do perform this role well, journalists need to have at least undergraduate level knowledge in the relevant fields.<p>Academic scholars have 10+ years experience in their specialist fields, there is no way that you can easily bridge the knowledge gap to that of the general public. That is why journalists are trained to write simply and to use a basic vocabulary.