I have to confess: I am not a podcast person. I am totally guilty of the hefty “Can’t Pay Attention to Any Online Content Longer than 30-60 Seconds” charge waged against my fellow members of Gen Z. Every time I have tried to get into a podcast, I begin listening to what the hosts are talking about, go down a winding thought path on whatever subject the hosts were discussing, and by the time I mentally tune back in, the hosts have moved on and I have to go back to where I began daydreaming. This doesn’t mean that I don’t like podcasts, per se. I so desperately wish that I could be a podcast person. When a friend approaches me with “I was listening to X podcast and…” or “have you heard Y podcast?”, I shrivel up a little in shame. I want to be a podcast person. I want to be a podcast person not only because there are a lot of cool podcasts out there, but also because the podcast, as a form of media production, carries a level of intellectual sophistication that I think can be applied to the realm of scholarly production.
If we think about podcasting as a narrative method, how does it apply to the work of scholars? As laid out by Michael J. Altman in the article Podcasting Religious Studies, podcasts, while a form of digital media, is different from other online content due to its asynchronous production for a niche audience. Podcasts make money not just from clicks, but from developing a loyal listener base who will continue to give clicks. I think it is this catering to a hyper-specific listener base that makes the podcast form an easy way to transduce scholarly media. Not only is the podcast form an effective way of transducing scholarly production, I think I would go so far as to say it would be a necessary development if scholarly endeavors are to survive in the digital realm.
I want to look at the accessibility of podcasts as a reason why more scholars should use the form. Podcasting seems, at first glance, to provide accessibility where other forms of scholarly production do not. If a monograph is the source of scholarly production, or the root of it, podcasting is part of the many leaves on a tree of scholarly endeavors that grow up and out. The monograph is rooted in traditional models of production and scholarship whereas a podcast can reach other interested parties while still being tied to the root from which it came. While I think it would take some time to rework the structure of production (as I thoroughly agree with Altman’s other point on how the structure of many academic podcasts don’t lend themselves to accessibility), ultimately I find the means of producing and distributing scholarly work through a podcast inspiring. If the academy can find its footing in a more accessible, digital method of producing scholarly work, then maybe I too can be a podcast person.
Check out the works I have referenced in this blog!
Michael J. Altman (2015) Podcasting religious studies, Religion, 45:4, 573-584,
DOI: 10.1080/0048721X.2015.1055668
Ben Franklin’s World, https://benfranklinsworld.com/
Keep It!, https://crooked.com/podcast-series/keep-it/
I totally agree that podcasts are a necessary development for the survival of humaninities, and I agree that accessibility needs to be expaneded upon to make this happen. Scholars have learned to to write an engaging article, but no one has really taught academics how to create other forms of engaging scholarship, such as podcasts. And I will definitely check out the podcasts you mentioned!!
Finally, another person who just can’t get into podcasts (love that we both started our blog posts by mentioning that)!
I like how you characterize podcasts as one leaf on “a tree of scholarly endeavors.” I think that’s the perfect way to sum it up: podcasts don’t quite seem to stand on their own as a scholarly “genre” yet, but with some “re-working,” as you mention, they do seem to be moving in that direction.
Finally, another person who just can’t get into podcasts (love that we both started our blog posts by mentioning that)!
I like how you characterize podcasts as one leaf on “a tree of scholarly endeavors.” I think that’s the perfect way to sum it up: podcasts don’t quite seem to stand on their own as a scholarly “genre” yet, but with some “re-working,” as you mention, they do seem to be moving in that direction.