Getting out of the closet: Scientific authorship of literary fiction and knowledge transfer

Some scientists write literary fiction books in their spare time. If these books contain scientific knowledge, literary fiction becomes a mechanism of knowledge transfer. In this case, we could conceptualize literary fiction as non-formal knowledge transfer. We model knowledge transfer via literary fiction as a function of the type of scientist (academic or non-academic) and his/her scientific field. Academic scientists are those employed in academia and public research organizations whereas non-academic scientists are those with a scientific background employed in other sectors. We also distinguish between direct knowledge transfer (the book includes the scientist’s research topics), indirect knowledge transfer (scientific authors talk about their research with cultural agents) and reverse knowledge transfer (cultural agents give scientists ideas for future research). Through mixed-methods research and a sample from Spain, we find that scientific authorship accounts for a considerable percentage of all literary fiction authorship. Academic scientists do not transfer knowledge directly so often as non-academic scientists, but the former engage into indirect and reverse transfer knowledge more often than the latter. Scientists from History stand out in direct knowledge transfer. We draw propositions about the role of the academic logic and scientific field on knowledge transfer via literary fiction. We advance some tentative conclusions regarding the consideration of scientific authorship of literary fiction as a valuable knowledge transfer mechanism.

💡 Research Summary

The article investigates how scientists who write literary fiction can serve as a conduit for the transfer of scientific knowledge. The authors first distinguish between “academic scientists” (research and teaching staff employed by universities or public research institutes) and “non‑academic scientists” (those working in industry, hospitals, or independently). They then propose a novel classification of knowledge‑transfer mechanisms, positioning literary fiction within a “non‑formal knowledge transfer” category. Unlike formal mechanisms (patents, licences) that involve explicit intellectual‑property disclosures to a technology‑transfer office, or informal mechanisms (consulting, collaborative research) that occur during work hours, non‑formal transfer occurs in spare time, generates copyrights but does not require institutional disclosure, and therefore lies outside the traditional taxonomy.

Three types of transfer are defined: (1) Direct Knowledge Transfer – the scientific content of the author’s research is embedded in the narrative; (2) Indirect Knowledge Transfer – the author uses the cultural network surrounding the book (presentations, interviews, literary events) to discuss their research; (3) Reverse Knowledge Transfer – cultural agents (editors, fellow writers, readers) provide the scientist with ideas that may shape future research.

Methodologically, the study employs a mixed‑methods design based on a sample from two Spanish regions (Valencia and the Valencian Community). Quantitative analysis uses bibliographic data on published fiction to estimate the probability that a given book is authored by a scientist, controlling for genre, publisher size, geographic origin, etc. Logistic regression identifies the determinants of scientific authorship. Qualitative data are gathered through semi‑structured interviews with a subset of identified scientist‑authors, allowing the authors to code instances of direct, indirect, and reverse transfer.

Key findings are: (i) Scientists account for roughly 8‑10 % of all literary‑fiction authors, a proportion higher than expected; (ii) Non‑academic scientists are more likely to engage in direct knowledge transfer, especially in natural‑science and engineering fields where research topics appear explicitly in plotlines; (iii) Academic scientists are less prone to embed research directly but are significantly more active in indirect and reverse transfer, leveraging the book’s publicity, literary festivals, and discussions with cultural stakeholders; (iv) Scholars from the humanities and social sciences—particularly historians—stand out for high rates of direct transfer, suggesting a natural affinity between historical research and narrative fiction.

The authors interpret these patterns through the lens of institutional logic. Academic scientists operate under reward systems that prioritize peer‑reviewed publications and patents, making the informal embedding of research in a novel a lower‑priority activity. Consequently, they prefer non‑formal, network‑based dissemination. Non‑academic scientists, facing market‑driven incentives, find direct embedding an efficient way to showcase expertise and attract attention.

Policy implications are drawn: universities and research institutes should recognize and support non‑formal transfer activities, for example by providing copyright assistance, facilitating connections with cultural institutions, and incorporating such activities into evaluation criteria. This could enhance public understanding of science, foster interdisciplinary dialogue, and mitigate potential negative effects such as burnout or brain‑drain of creatively talented researchers.

The paper concludes that literary fiction authored by scientists constitutes a distinct, non‑formal knowledge‑transfer channel whose prevalence and dynamics depend on the scientist’s institutional affiliation and disciplinary background. It calls for further cross‑national studies and for quantitative measurement of the impact of such transfers on public attitudes and on subsequent scientific innovation.