Why public disengagement with economists, managers and sociologists reflects systemic incentives, media framing, and cultural hierarchies
Original framing: “The public isn't bored with economists, management scholars and sociologists but engaging people has conditions” — Phys.org
Empirical research on science communication demonstrates that framing, storytelling, and co‑creation increase comprehension and trust across disciplines, including economics and sociology. Meta‑analyses show that impact metrics improve when scholars publish policy briefs, engage in citizen assemblies, or use visual analytics. The scientific evidence thus contradicts the notion that social science is inherently less engaging than ‘hard’ sciences.
The apparent public disinterest in economists, managers, and sociologists is less a failure of the scholars than a symptom of entrenched incentive structures, media economics, and cultural hierarchies that privilege elite narratives.
Historical precedents show that when institutions realign rewards toward co‑production and when media embraces relational storytelling, engagement rises dramatically. Indigenous epistemologies, cross‑cultural communication styles, and artistic‑spiritual practices provide concrete tools to reframe complex ideas for diverse audiences. By embedding marginalised voices in research design and employing future‑oriented scenario planning, policy outcomes become more equitable and resilient. A trickster lens reveals that the system’s self‑portrayal as neutral masks its role in sustaining exclusion, urging a deliberate inversion of authority to unlock systemic transformation.