Scholarly Podcasting: Lessons From Disseminating Grounded Theory Findings on Singing Facilitation

Abstract

Scholarly podcasting is a creative method of qualitative research dissemination that is gaining recognition for its effectiveness and accessibility. Although podcasting has existed for decades, scholarly podcasting is still in its infancy, with contemporary literature suggesting its potential to broaden public scholarship and engage diverse audiences. In this article, we critically reflect on using a five-part podcast series to disseminate the findings of an original grounded theory study. The article begins with a definition of scholarly podcasting and a discussion of its prevalence. We then reflect on its research impact, the resonance between study design and podcasting as a dissemination method, the ethics of using voice, and concerns regarding efficiency and rigour. Technical guidance for readers considering dissemination through scholarly podcasting is provided. These topics are drawn from our experience creating scholarly podcasts, evaluated against recent literature. Our podcasts incorporated study participants’ voices, researcher narration, and diverse aural elements such as songs and soundscapes. We argue these podcast attributes meaningfully engaged audiences, fostering emotional connections with the findings, as illustrated by listener feedback. This article offers readers reflections on our recent podcast dissemination, informed by relevant cross-disciplinary literature on scholarly podcasts.

Introduction

This section begins with a definition of scholarly podcasting and a discussion of its prevalence in research dissemination. In the following section, our grounded theory study is briefly introduced to set the context for our own podcast series. In the body of the article, we discuss both the attributes of effective qualitative research dissemination and how podcast impact can be measured. We use examples from our own podcasting series to illustrate research impact before examining critical considerations of scholarly podcasting. These include research design, the ethics of using voice, research rigour and efficiency, and technical guidance for scholarly podcast recording. Each of these topics combines insights gained from our scholarly podcasting with contemporary literature from a variety of disciplines.

Definition and Prevalence of Scholarly Podcasts

Podcasts are produced for a variety of purposes, including entertainment. Scholarly podcasts can include dissemination of research findings, methodological discussions, and knowledge translation (Fox & Singer, 2025; Treco & Jordan, 2024). Some scholarly podcasts involve presenting original findings generated by researchers and experts within an academic context (Persohn & Branson, 2024). All of these podcast types share some characteristics. Podcasts are digital audio files distributed via the internet which can be downloaded onto a portable device or live-streamed as on-demand internet radio (Llinares et al., 2018; Rime et al., 2022). Typically, podcasts have a series of episodes (Kulkov et al., 2024; Rime et al., 2022), providing listeners with an “ethnographic portrait” painted by a researcher-host who reveals cultural aspects of a story (Treco & Jordan, 2024, p. 2). Podcast listeners can choose to subscribe to a podcast series and receive notifications of new episodes (Kulkov et al., 2024). Podcasts are accessible to produce due to the availability of open-source creation software and affordable internet hosting options (Kiernan et al., 2023). Accessibility also enhances audience engagement because podcasts are playable anywhere and at any time (Rime et al., 2022). To meet the needs of audiences for whom audio transmission is a barrier, most podcasting services provide simple transcription tools (Persohn & Branson, 2024). Accessibility is not without its limitations, and we discuss these later in this article.

The ease of podcast production and consumption means podcasts, originally used for news, education, and entertainment (Kiernan et al., 2023) are also being harnessed for research dissemination (Llinares et al., 2018). Researchers can use podcasts to reach audiences who may be interested in scholarly publications but lack the resources to easily access scholarly papers or conferences (Persohn & Branson, 2024). As such, scholarly podcasts are one method of growing public scholarship (Persohn & Branson, 2024). Not only does scholarly podcasting potentially broaden the audience of research findings, but it elicits “creative, transformative, and generous” outputs (Cook, 2023, p. 13). Described as having wide audience appeal, novel application to research dissemination, and affording researchers creative scope, scholarly podcasting has been proposed as a liminal medium (Llinares et al., 2018). Also positioned as emergent and fertile ground for researchers, podcasting has been recently lauded “a different mode, a different tone, a different level of accessibility and a ‘new’ way to think about the literacies of research” (Persohn & Branson, 2024, p. 285).

Although podcasts have existed for twenty years (Singer, 2019), the discussion of podcasting as a scholarly communication method is new and increasingly prevalent (Llinares et al., 2018). A systematic review investigating the trajectory of the use of podcasts in research over the preceding twelve years found podcasts were increasingly popular as educational instruments, including the promotion of health (Prata et al., 2021). The popularity of podcasts in academic research has also been noted more recently (Rime et al., 2022). Despite the increasing prevalence of research podcasting, the questions of effect and impact remain unclear (Wang et al., 2024). In this article, we reflect on the effectiveness and impact of disseminating the findings of a grounded theory study with scholarly podcasting. We provide a critical examination of the impact of our podcast series, informed by contemporary literature.

Introduction to Our Podcast Series

We used scholarly podcasting to report the findings of our grounded theory study on singing facilitation. In this section, we briefly introduce the study and describe the underlying methodology, then describe how our use of scholarly podcasting aligned with the philosophical basis of our chosen methodology.

Group singing is a joyous communal activity that enhances participants’ well-being. While research highlights its positive impacts, little is known about those who facilitate these groups. Our study investigated the under-researched perspectives and experiences of group singing facilitators (Densley et al., 2024; Irons et al., 2024) and a grounded theory of singing facilitation titled ‘Creating Song Magic’ was generated from analysis of the data. The grounded theory study is not the topic of this article; however, readers interested in our study can access the podcast series reporting the findings here [https://www.youtube.com/@BelindaDensleySinging].

Ontologically, the research design was underpinned by a relativist stance, whereby reality is regarded as continuously recreated by human beings based on their intersubjective understanding (Hellström, 2008) and is apprehended through mental constructions that are socially and experientially informed (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Epistemologically, our interpretivist methodological stance meant we considered our research findings to be context-based. It was essential to understand what facilitation meant for those in the role (Pascall et al., 2011) and important to grasp the meanings constructed by the facilitators of their actions rather than merely describe the existence of them (Schwandt, 2003).

Axiologically, feminist values informed the design and conduct of this research, whereby the often-overlooked voice of the singing group facilitator within the broader discourse on group singing was centred and amplified. Feminist research values promote the emergence of a collective voice, allowing participants to hear one another (Harrison & Ogden, 2021). Our research design was also informed by the principles of epistemic justice, which refers to the active participation in research and the sharing of knowledge creation (Temper & Del Bene, 2016).

Adopting a constructivist grounded theory design (Charmaz, 2015), we investigated the group singing facilitation process through interviews with thirty expert singing facilitators. The resulting video, audio, and written transcripts were analysed to produce the grounded theory of group singing facilitation, called Creating Song Magic, and were also used in the scholarly podcasts we chose as a dissemination method. Specifically, whenever key conceptual categories of the theory were introduced by the researcher-narrator (BD), audio clips of participants were included to explain or illustrate the concepts: sometimes through spoken testimony, and sometimes through singing or speech.

During analysis, we found that group singing facilitators feel their work is misunderstood and undervalued in society. This finding echoed other research reporting communication barriers between arts, health, and community sectors in relation to group singing (Dingle et al., 2024). Our study was conducted during a time when group singing was becoming a popular health intervention (Helitzer et al., 2022; Hendry et al., 2022; Kang et al., 2018) so we aimed to contribute findings that would improve understanding of the singing facilitator role. We determined that the use of podcasts could address these communication barriers because of the popularity of podcasting in society.

We wanted the findings of our study to reach singing facilitators and their singing participants and contribute accessible explanatory theory of the work to the field. We determined that by creating short audio documentaries, combining the recorded voices of singing facilitators, researcher narration, and group singing recordings, we were able to embed feminist and epistemic justice values in the dissemination of the research, as we had in the study design.

The resulting grounded theory of group singing facilitation, Creating Song Magic, comprises four categories: advocating, curating, welcoming and sustaining harmonious expression, and transforming communities. The presentation of these categories in the podcasts illustrated how singing group facilitation supports community health at the grassroots level. Podcast dissemination involved amplifying the voices and work of group singing facilitators, with the potential to enhance recognition and support for this role, and to increase the capacity for the work to be sustained within social prescribing and other community health programs.

The podcast series we published provides a nuanced explanation of the concept of song magic, interrogated against research from the community music field about magical experiences. While a full discussion of this concept is beyond the scope of this article on podcasting, we introduce ‘magic’ because it alerts readers to the power of podcasting to unpack and explain complex (or ephemeral) concepts.

We aimed to bring song magic alive so the podcast audience could hear, and perhaps even feel, magic while it was being described and theorised. For example, we harnessed opportunities for the podcast audience to hear a five-second clip of a massed singing group in four-part harmony rather than simply listening to a description of harmony. To achieve this, we leveraged the spectrum of aural possibilities by using singing, participant testimony and commentary. The findings were narrated, punctuated with participant quotes harvested from recorded interviews, and accented with carefully chosen song excerpts sung by a community of singers.

Because voice was central to both the research topic and design, we considered it crucial to amplify voice in dissemination. Each of our five podcasts included at least 250 voices: a combination of community singers, participants, and the researcher-narrator. These episodes report on the categories within the grounded theory, with our ontological and epistemological foundations embedded in the sound of facilitators co-constructing meaning. In the forthcoming sections, we consider the effectiveness of our dissemination choices in concert with the published literature on scholarly podcasting. Throughout the article, quoted excerpts from the podcasts and publicly available listener feedback on the podcasts are presented in italics to support key points. These quotes are attributed in one of three ways. Quotes from participants from our study are attributed to [Facilitator], from the podcast narration [Researcher] and other quotes to [Listener].

Reflecting on Research Impact

Podcasting as an Effective Qualitative Dissemination Method

Scholarly podcasting is still in its infancy, and few studies have examined its effectiveness. A recent scoping review reports that a small pool of studies across disciplines has attempted to define the affordances and limitations of podcasting in public scholarship (Persohn & Branson, 2025). Existing research primarily represents the disciplines of medicine, social work, education, and anthropology. In this section, we contribute to that emerging body of work by reflecting on the dissemination of findings from our study on group singing facilitation. We explore the impact of scholarly podcasting as a method of communicating research at the intersection of community music and community health. We discuss our own podcasts, in conjunction with literature on qualitative research dissemination, and use our listener feedback to support our discussion.

The effects of reporting qualitative research findings span cognitive and emotional realms and have pragmatic consequences. In our study, the purpose of the research was specifically to explain a social process (group singing facilitation) (Morse et al., 2021). However, the research findings are presented in a way that also addressed the other effects detailed by Bekker and Clark (2018) including eliciting emotions, validating phenomena, resolving questions about reality or solving problems. An example of listener feedback below is validating in this regard:

“I am currently pretty covered in goose bumps. I've just finished the first episode - I could cry! I feel like I've just walked into a family. Maybe it's just hearing the voices of the people I don't know talking passionately about singing facilitation and talking about how they started and how purposeful it is and all the aspects I'm living. It is so affirming, so motivating, so exciting. I'm very proud and tremendously grateful”. [Facilitator]

The above feedback from a participant facilitator is also evidence of member checking. Member checking, where participants review findings and comment on them, is a process to enhance research rigour (Valentine, 2003). Valli (2021) explains that member checking is a researcher responsibility that includes the decision to disseminate findings to an audience beyond academia.

The question of what makes the reporting of qualitative findings effective was explored using genre theory by Bekker and Clark (2018). Factors including presentation, presence, storification, thematic structure, and reshaped norms of scholarly discourse were present in quality reporting, including in podcasts (Bekker & Clark, 2018). Examples of these attributes using our own scholarly podcasting dissemination are provided below.

Presentation involves the researcher communicating in a manner resonant with the audience (Bekker & Clark, 2018). We suggest the use of an aural medium, incorporating singing and valuing individual voices within a harmonised message, is resonant with the core tenet of group singing. Varying the style of presentation and having self-awareness is key to presencing in research dissemination (Bekker & Clark, 2018). The first author’s dual role as researcher-narrator and singing facilitator enabled a natural capacity for being present to opportunities for multimodal voice within the podcast series. By the researcher taking an observer/presenter role in podcast narration, we were also able to centre participant voices therefore demonstrating that the findings were grounded in the data.

Storification, a term used by Bekker and Clark (2018) and drawn from genre theory, refers to a narrative, humanising approach to presenting findings that evokes the essence of qualitative research insights. These authors suggest that researchers embody the identity of a researcher-storyteller to elicit emotional responses from listeners. In our podcasts, the narration role enabled the theorisation of the group singing facilitation process, punctuated by segues into illustrative stories that aimed to deepen audience connection with the concepts. In one example, the researcher-narrator was theorising how the work of singing facilitators transforms communities. The podcast episode included stories from facilitators who described being invited into the funerals of participants as illustrations of how singing was valued in people’s lives. Following this section, another participant quote was included to describe how brand new mothers received enormous support when singing together in a group. The quote below, from the researcher-narrator in our study, provides an example of companioning the audience through the findings and guiding them across the emotional landscape of topics such as life and death:

“At the other end of the scale, Kate reflects on an experience in her singing session that relates to new life.” [Researcher]

Song was also used to accent the rich accounts of the role of group singing at the beginning and end of life, adding further dimension to Bekker and Clark’s (2018) concept of storification.

Thematic structure is important in research dissemination whereby the presentation is structured around the main message (Bekker & Clark, 2018). In our case, our central concept was ‘Creating Song Magic’ which included several categories. To enhance the clarity of these categories, and their association with the central concept, we named the series ‘Creating Song Magic’ and released an episode for each category. We continually revised the process and reoriented the listener to the overall process at the beginning of each episode.

The potential of podcasting to improve the relationship between academic and non-academic communities has been identified, along with the capacity of podcasts to increase the impact of scholarship (Treco & Jordan, 2024). Scholarly norms can be bent and re-shaped in effective dissemination (Bekker & Clark, 2018) and we aimed to bend norms bidirectionally. We diverted from the typical presentation of findings by introducing literature, in our case about magic and well-being, into the findings. We also sometimes revisited the research design within the findings. These deviations from standard presentation aimed to enhance the engagement of the listener and to explain not only what the findings were, but how they were iteratively developed. In the example below we introduced non-academic listeners to research methodology, in a similar explanatory way as we hoped to introduce our theory to non-singing facilitator listeners.

“I have chosen to present the findings of my research in harmony with the participants I engaged with - singing facilitators with decades of experience in the leading of singing groups. My research methodology is known as constructivist grounded theory. For the purpose of this podcast, two points are relevant. One; all the arguments I make about the work in this podcast series are grounded in the data so while I’ve organised the concepts and theorised the process, I’m using the voices of the facilitators throughout the series to evidence the grounding of my findings in the data. Secondly, taking a constructivist approach means I believe humans make meaning together – through interaction. I even wrote a song about it.

[Sung: a group] I’ll try. I’ll try, to hold your hands and look you in the eye, and listen (Densley et al., 2024).” [Researcher]

Podcasts have supported inter-disciplinary collaboration in healthcare teams (Kiernan et al., 2023) and we also hoped to enhance literacies of our listeners in a gentle and engaging manner. An example of feedback here indicates we may have had success in this area. This singing facilitator research participant listened to the podcasts then read a methods publication related to the study (see Densley et al., 2024):

“Thank you so much for this affirming, reflective, timely work! I love hearing our insights elevated and explored and have much more understanding of the process on reading your journal article.” [Facilitator]

Although the effectiveness and impact of scholarly podcasts have been suggested in the research literature, there remains a question of how that impact is measured.

Measuring Podcast Impact

The question of measuring podcast impact has been explored by Persohn and Branson (2024) who discussed a Podcast Success Index (PSI) developed by Singh et al., (2016). There are two factors used to calculate PSI: longevity (measured in months) and number of monthly episodes. Criticism of the PSI centres on its reliance on limited metrics to calculate success, and the fact that it has not been used in any peer-reviewed publications (Persohn & Branson, 2024). Instead, alternative metrics, known as altmetrics, are used to measure the reach of social scholarship including podcasts. Work to understand how altmetrics can complement traditional citation metrics, like scholarly podcasting itself, is also in its infancy (Persohn & Branson, 2024) but these metrics can track engagement, reach and audience demographics by episode, and over time. Podcast subscriptions can be considered similar to journal subscriptions, and scholarly application of podcast outputs compared with citations; however these measures are complicated because true engagement is not reflected in academic circles (Persohn & Branson, 2024).

An example of altmetrics is provided here drawing on our own study. In January 2025, we released five podcasts online. Video analytics built into the hosting platform indicated we had 816 views over the first 18 days and 63 new subscribers to the channel. We could see 13 new comments had been posted and most of our views had come from Australia. The number of unique viewers engaged with each subsequent podcast episode was also reported. These figures are indications of engagement, but they may not accurately reflect impact. For example, our listener feedback indicates potential shifts in practice by facilitators, or engagement by the community, but neither of these shifts would be represented in later academic citations.

“I loved your podcast and have immediately onshared it with people whom I know will love this, who need it, and who will hopefully overcome their hesitancy and join or rejoin a community choir, because I believe, as you do, that everyone needs to sing. I am bereft without song and 'my' community choir.” [Listener]

The question of how public scholarship is valued has been tackled by Persohn and Branson (2024) who suggest feedback, such as that presented above from our dissemination, ought to be valued in academia to support scholarly podcasters to communicate the value of their work. These authors argue for a “fundamental shift” in how academic institutions and researchers regard research dissemination (p. 269). Valuable features of scholarly podcasting include how they build community and enable practical connections between listeners (Persohn & Branson, 2024). Epistemic justice, was built into our research design and using podcasting allowed us the potential to share and cultivate knowing with broad audiences. Community building between research participants, who were unknown to one another, was developed through the podcasts. Examples of such feedback is presented here.

“Thank you for this. I so love hearing all the other facilitators... makes me want to get together…. facilitators camp?” [Facilitator]

“I want to thank you for compiling this accessible, relatable collection of wisdom, experience and creativity from such a fantastically dedicated group of humans. I was nodding, smiling and saying yes out loud the whole episode 2. Having it distilled into a format anyone can experience and understand is really powerful and pays respect to the enormity of the work we do. I can't wait to listen to the next episodes.” [Facilitator]

The idea of reaching the public, rather than the academic community only, was also apprehended by Leavy (2020) who challenged researchers to think like “public intellectuals” and make research relevant and widely accessible (p. 32). Podcast accessibility was examined through the lens of disability studies and critical race theory by Treco and Jordan (2024) who argued podcasting enables counter-storying by the participants themselves who are given voice to challenge dominant narratives about disability (Treco & Jordan, 2024). We agree with Treco and Jordan (2024) that bringing the voices of the participants to the listener directly met gaps in knowledge and representation. In our study on group singing facilitation, we unveiled hidden work. We presented findings about a group singing facilitation process that is misunderstood, under-represented and undervalued within arts, music and community health cultures. Listener feedback below describes the impact of our podcasts on brokering important conversations between these stakeholders:

“Belinda Densley's research into group singing facilitation has been enormously valuable for Community Music Victoria as it helps the community music sector recover from the sector- wide impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Her podcast's discussion of the social and health benefits of participatory group singing and the skills leaders require to do this work helped inform CMVic's submission to the Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry into Creative and Cultural Funding.” [Listener]

Reflections on the Benefits and Difficulties of Scholarly Podcasting

Podcasts are generally regarded as effective communication methods offering listeners unique experiences with diverse content (Rime et al., 2022). However, podcasting is not without its disadvantages. In this section, we present how the key advantage of scholarly podcasting for our dissemination was the design resonance afforded to us by using voice to communicate a study about voice. We then canvass the difficulties we encountered, which may represent useful ethical considerations for readers considering scholarly podcasting.

Research Design and the Use of Voice

Research design includes the dissemination of findings, and design resonance refers to the fit between the study topic and the way the research is conducted (Charmaz & Thornberg, 2021). The role of voice, so valued in our own project, can be an asset in qualitative research dissemination where presence and authority can be conveyed by the public speaking skills of the podcast presenter (Bekker & Clark, 2018). We aimed for vocal authority to be conveyed in our podcasts by the researcher-narrator as well as the research participants, in accordance with feminist values. By theorising the process of group singing facilitation using the voices of participants, we articulated, and at times demonstrated, a theory grounded in the data. This resonated with singing facilitator study participants evidenced in this listener feedback.

“It's lovely to hear my sentiments echoed by so many other people who do this work. Next time someone asks me what my real job is, I'm going to send them this link.” [Facilitator]

We received similar feedback from non-facilitator listeners about the use of facilitator voice. This comment highlights how the use of participant voice brought the listener closer to the people interviewed than they might have been if they were simply reading aggregated written findings.

“Those facilitators you have interviewed are amazingly, thoughtful, considerate, open-hearted people. Can't wait for the next episode.” [Listener]

Design resonance was further enhanced by using song and aural landscapes in our podcast series, to accent our findings. Such resonance was also harnessed in a scholarly geographical podcasting series exploring the role of a river. Scriven (2022) used field recordings and interviews to present research findings, allowing community voices to speak for themselves, while using other sounds to tell stories of place and spatial themes (Scriven, 2022). In our podcast, we also used field recordings of narration by the river, and singing in nature, to accent our findings about transforming communities through group singing facilitation. This layered sonic context has been lyrically described by another researcher-podcaster working in the field of geography who argues podcasting can “engage affective registers [and] facilitate polyvocal dialogue” (Kinkaid et al., 2021, p. 81). In our study of group singing, the notion of polyvocal is resonant and compelling. We highlighted the harmonisation of participant voices throughout our podcast narration, with the following excerpt an example:

“You will hear their voices of singing facilitators throughout this story. After all, we love to harmonise with other voices.” [Researcher]

Although we used transcripts to meet the needs of people who are unable to hear podcasts, the aural elements of song, harmony and soundscapes were not captured in these transcripts. Therefore, the widely regarded podcast accessibility (Persohn & Branson, 2024; Rime et al., 2022) is compromised when podcasts include sonic layers.

Our research design did not originally incorporate a plan for podcast dissemination. Therefore, we needed to re-visit consent once we had determined to use scholarly podcasting. Originally, when participants consented to be interviewed for our study, they could opt not to be identified with any quotes used in later publications. Seven participants elected to be de-identified (using a pseudonym), posing a problem for podcast production whereby we aimed to use participant voices.

We revisited consent whereby all participants were contacted individually, as they had welcomed with their original consent. They were advised of our intention to release podcast episodes of our findings, provided with a verbatim script of their quotes, and were informed of the context surrounding the quote use, such as the name of the episode and the topic of discussion. Participants could choose to be identified (with their own recorded voice used) or have their quote voiced by an actor, maintaining anonymity. In all cases, the selected content did not identify participants. In our study, all participants reviewed the material and agreed to have their own voice used in the podcast episodes. The fact we had not designed the research to include podcasting meant we needed to undertake extra work to gain consent and navigate potential obstacles to using the data.

Another example of a study that did not anticipate obstacles to using participant voices in podcasts during the design phase occurred in the field of disability research. Treco and Jordan (2024) aimed to centre the voices of participants with disabilities in their scholarly podcasts. These authors encountered refusal from two key participants about using their voices, which led the researchers to conclude that their intention to empower participants had also exposed them to scrutiny and vulnerability (Treco & Jordan, 2024). Our study differed from theirs because we used a grounded theory design. The findings presented in our podcasts were grounded in compelling participant data, meaning that if we needed to remove a quote, several other potent options were available. This would not always be the case in studies aiming to amplify the unique voices of marginalised participants, as in the Treco and Jordan (2024) study. We recommend that researchers consider podcasting as a dissemination option during the design phase and provide participants with the opportunity to give informed consent regarding the use of their voices.

Efficiency and Rigour

Podcasts have been endorsed as cost-effective and efficient dissemination methods that circumvent the often-lengthy processes associated with research print publications (Wilkinson et al., 2021). For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic podcasts were used to rapidly disseminate information between healthcare professionals and the public (Kiernan et al., 2023). Instant feedback was enjoyed in our scholarly podcasting experience, as distinct from the often-lengthy publication process. The following listener feedback was posted within hours of the first episode.

“This makes me feel seen and heard. Thank you. Can't wait for the next one!” [Facilitator]

Instant feedback can be especially galvanising for an early career researcher. Isolation and doubt can be formidable for students (Alisic et al., 2024). However, listener feedback is not the same as academic peer review. The conversational style of podcasting may not be subjected to rigorous scrutiny typical of academic publications, such as the peer review process, and therefore may have questionable reliability (Kulkov et al., 2024). In our study, findings were also submitted in manuscript form, including podcast links, to a scholarly journal, thus subjecting them to peer review. Our study was part of a PhD project, so the scripts and podcasts were reviewed regularly by the supervisory team prior to release. In addition, member checking was conducted by pre-sending the quotes for review to participants, attesting to quality. These additional review measures were considered necessary in our case to mitigate the less rigorous process of scholarly podcasting that currently exists. We also drew on the measures of quality in constructivist grounded theory to evaluate our research including usefulness, credibility, originality, and resonance (Charmaz, 2014).

Another advantage of scholarly podcasting is how it segues naturally to media dissemination. It is important to find novel methods for sharing research with audiences beyond academia including the mass media, and there is value in doing so with artistic sensibility (Ingman, 2022). We recommend scholarly podcasting be scripted for a public audience, whilst respectful of academic audiences, including the PhD examiner. In our study, podcast scripts were prepared and read verbatim. They were presented within the PhD thesis in broadcast journalism layout. Both QR codes and internet links were provided for easy navigation and to allow for the use of multiple devices by the reader/listener. We were also guided by research on optimal podcast length for all listeners, being around 20 minutes (Cosimini et al., 2017). The careful preparation of the podcasts, which were in no way improvised, meant they were ready for a variety of purposes. This was noted in the early audience feedback (below), and a portion of our podcast was later broadcast on national radio.

“This so well illustrates the importance of community singing in building community and well-being. This would be a great presentation in a documentary on TV like Compass or a stand-alone program. The singing in between the dialogue really enhances the content.” [Listener]

Technical Recommendations regarding Scholarly Podcasting

Both the production of podcasts and audience responses to episodes are unregulated in nature. Throughout this article, we have included comments that are visible to anyone visiting our podcast link. Public comment opens the possibility of critical debate regarding the content and has been considered a safeguard against rogue publications (Persohn & Branson, 2024). Between the submission and publication of this manuscript, we anticipate that comments and feedback will aggregate and will represent a range of responses and views. We contend there is courage inherent in publishing findings in a truly public arena, however readers considering podcasting may consider the impact of unregulated publication when choosing the method.

Skills are required to produce scholarly podcasts, yet research education, including doctoral programs, tend not to focus on the scholarship of presentation (Bekker & Clark, 2018). Some challenges associated with podcasting include learning to record and edit effectively, and accessing recording resources and equipment (Treco & Jordan, 2024). We suggest some strategies to meet these challenges. These include tight scripting, careful consultative editing with a research team, field recordings, and consideration of all audiences.

Recording need not be cumbersome. In our study, most interviews were conducted with video conferencing software, so the interviews were recorded. To borrow from trade school parlance, measure twice and cut once. It is imperative to check sound levels, to conduct interviews in a quiet setting, and to have contingency plans. A second device was used to record all interviews in case of disruption. Recording of narration in our study was done on a mobile phone. Modern phones have user-friendly, high-quality microphones. We recorded pre-written scripts, often reading sections several times and choosing the best version during editing. Editing was undertaken using one of many free downloadable programmes with user-friendly functions and in-built help mechanisms. Editing was crucial in our project and two recommendations are offered to readers on this topic.

Firstly, considerable time was taken to remove pauses, loud breaths, minimal utterances such as ‘ums’ and ‘ahs’, and transitory speech such as “you know”. Whilst time-consuming, the product is of a much higher quality and more listenable due to these deletions. Secondly, we labelled every sound bite (including quotes, narration and songs), which made them easily movable and removable as needed. The countless hours needed to assemble scholarly podcasts like ours are commensurate with the notions of data immersion (Charmaz, 2014) required by researchers and consistent with being grounded theorists in our case.

A lack of transcripts has been identified as a further shortcoming of podcasting (Rime et al., 2022). While artificial intelligence is built into hosting sites now to automatically generate transcripts, we recommend thoroughly checking these for errors or, as in our case, generating your own in the planning process.

Recommendations

Our podcasting research and production have revealed both advantages and challenges of the method, which inform the following recommendations. We recommend that qualitative researchers:

(1) Consider using scholarly podcasting as a dissemination method in grounded theory studies (where the purpose of the research is to explain a social process), as well as in other qualitative research designs.

(2) Ensure that participants who consent to be part of a study that may be disseminated via scholarly podcasting are provided with sufficient information to give informed consent regarding the possible use of their voice and are offered the option of an alternative (such as a voice actor), should they wish to avoid voice identification.

(3) Use scholarly podcasting to communicate knowledge and foster dialogue both within and beyond academic communities.

(4) Use their scholarly podcasts in media outreach to creatively and impactfully extend social scholarship engagement.

(5) Enhance scholarly podcasts by incorporating sonic elements that reflect the topic (such as song in our study, or ambient sounds such as those used in place-based research).

(6) Address the lack of peer review in public podcasting by adopting rigorous quality assurance strategies, such as co-researcher review and member checking.

(7) Develop podcasts using careful scripting, consultative editing with the research team, field recordings, and attention to the needs of both academic and non-academic audiences.

(8) Apply thorough production checks, including sound level calibration, appropriate recording settings, a contingency recording device, and precise file labelling.

Conclusion

Scholarly podcasting is still in its infancy, and few studies have examined its effectiveness. We have discussed the innovative use of scholarly podcasting to communicate a grounded theory of group singing facilitation, contributing to the developing body of research in this area. We described how our podcast series met qualitative research goals of eliciting emotion, validating phenomena and exploring questions about reality. Listener feedback served as a member-checking mechanism in our study where the affordances of audio as a medium were embraced to communicate in a manner resonant with the topic of group singing. A goal of qualitative research is to strengthen relationships between academic and non-academic communities and engagement with a range of audiences was described in this article. Our podcasts informed policymaking processes about group singing facilitation, indicating research impact in a field still establishing how altmetrics can be harnessed. The discussion of an original grounded theory, disseminated through scholarly podcasting, was explored in relation to contemporary literature and informed eight recommendations for qualitative researchers considering the use of this dissemination method.