Imagine you’re reading a journal article in Nature and the methodology is sound, the findings are significant, the data analysis is rigorous…but it’s printed in Comic Sans.
How seriously would you take it?
That gut reaction you just had? That’s the point. Aesthetic choices aren’t neutral, they shape reception before a single word is processed.
The myth of aesthetic neutrality
I’ve spent the last decade producing research-based podcasts, and one of the most persistent myths I encounter is academics who believe they can present “objective” knowledge, stripped of aesthetic context.
Objectivity is a myth, all we have is rigorous approximation.
Every time you publish research, you make aesthetic choices. The tone and cadence you choose for your paper. The layout of your slides. The colours in your data visualisation. These aren’t superficial decisions, they’re fundamental to how your audience receives and retains your work.
The question isn’t whether aesthetics influence knowledge transfer. The question is are you making those choices intentionally or by default?
Think of it like data visualisation
You might already know this from working with data. Take the same dataset, let’s say climate temperature trends over 50 years. Present it as:
- A cluttered Excel table with no formatting
- A clean line graph with clear axes and colour coding
- An animated, interactive visualisation with regional breakdowns
Same data. Wildly different impact on comprehension and retention.
Your podcast works the same way. The “data” is your research. The visualisation is your production: audio quality, pacing, music, sound design. You wouldn’t publish a critical dataset as an unformatted spreadsheet. Why would you publish important research as unproduced audio?
Or think of it like a conference presentation
You’ve sat through both kinds:
- The presenter with 47 bullet points per slide in 10-point font, reading directly from the screen in monotone
- The presenter with clean visuals, strategic emphasis, thoughtful pacing, maybe even a short video clip or a Slido poll for the audience
Both might contain equally rigorous research but which one actually transferred knowledge? Which one led to conversations afterward? Which one did you remember a week later?
Audio production is your presentation design. Except your audience can’t see your slides, they can only hear your choices.
What peer reviewers taught me about sound design
When we sent the first Urban Studies podcast episodes out for peer review, something unexpected happened. The reviewers didn’t only comment on the academic content and methodological rigour, they also gave feedback on how to make it a more engaging audio output.
They weren’t instructed to do this, it wasn’t part of the review criteria, but they did it anyway. They understood intuitively what many of us resist: form and content are inseparable.
One piece of feedback particularly delighted me: reviewers suggested we needed more soundscapes, more immersive audio elements. I’m always keen on getting more creative with sound, I enjoy audio craftwork, but often get pushback. Academics can be uncomfortable moving away from dry technical facts towards more story-full communication, let alone decorating it with creative choices or letting art step into the foreground.
Yet here were the peer reviewers, gatekeepers of academic rigour, validating that artistic production enhances, rather than undermines, scholarly communication.
So I went back and sound-designed each episode. When someone talked about bicycles in urban planning, I added the distant ring of a bicycle bell. When researchers reminisced about significant places in their research, I transported listeners there with archival audio from the fall of the Berlin Wall, traffic sounds from Bogotá, recordings made specifically in London streets.
The result is richer knowledge retention, deeper engagement, and without sacrificing any academic integrity.
The false dichotomy between integrity and artistry
I think we make a false dichotomy between informative and entertaining. You can have fun and also be serious about your work.
You’ve read journal articles that are also beautifully written. Articles where scholars make little in-jokes about their discipline—references you could gloss over or deeply appreciate if you’re in the field. Nobody questions the rigour of those papers. We celebrate them.
So why assume that podcasts need to choose between being engaging and being scholarly?
Audio demands clarity. It demands thoughtful pacing. And yes, it demands aesthetic choices that support knowledge transfer. That’s not “dumbing down” it’s knowing your medium.
Music and sound effects as a strategic tool (not decoration)
Let’s get practical. Music and sound in research podcasts is about cognitive support for your audience so complex ideas are easier to digest.
Here’s some ways you can use these strategically:
During technical explanations: Faster-paced, subtle instrumental music keeps energy up when you’re explaining complex concepts. Your listener’s brain gets a bit of stimulation to help them stay focused through the density. Often they don’t even notice the music is there.
With monotone or stat-heavy delivery: Music compensates when a speaker’s natural delivery is flat. It makes information feel more significant and helps statistics land with impact rather than sliding past.
At transitions: A little musical signature can tell an audience “we’re moving to something new now” without saying a word. It gives listeners a cognitive break before the next section begins.
As punctuation: A sound, music, or even a pause can work to emphasis a key point that has been made by your speaker. It give listeners time to absorb what has been said.
However it’s crucial to make thoughtful choices that fit the content. A jaunty tune leading into a discussion about housing inequity would feel inappropriate and undermine your message. A thoughtful, subtle music bed enhances the seriousness and importance of that same topic.
The bottom line
Caring about how your podcast sounds isn’t vanity, it’s recognising that you’re working in a medium where sound is the content.
You can have integrity and speak clearly, vividly, engagingly. Someone who truly knows their work can make it accessible without compromising rigour or integrity. Podcast with all its artistic possibilities demands and deserves that approach.
Your aesthetic choices are already influencing how your research is received so make them thoughtfully and harness the power of audio to better embed your ideas into people’s mind. Make choices that elevate your work rather than incidental selections that can hinder your message.