This website stores cookies on your computer. These cookies are used to collect information about how you interact with our website and allow us to remember your browser. We use this information to improve and customize your browsing experience, for analytics and metrics about our visitors both on this website and other media, and for marketing purposes. By using this website, you accept and agree to be bound by UVic’s Terms of Use and Protection of Privacy Policy.  If you do not agree to the above, you can configure your browser’s setting to “do not track.”

Skip to main content

Why write for The Conversation Canada?

January 16, 2026

Tim Naimi

 

Q&A with Tim Naimi

Tim is professor of medical sciences and director of UVic’s Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research (CISUR). He has written two articles for The Conversation Canada: one in January 2025 with colleague Peter Butt about the tool KnowAlcohol.ca, which was translated into French; one in September 2025 about alcohol’s contribution to the liver disease epidemic.


  • What inspired you to write, Tim?

My research investigates the health effects of alcohol and alcohol policy. Our key audience is really the general public, especially those who are scientifically inclined. The Conversation offers a nice interface for that. I think it’s a good platform for people whose research needs to find its way into the public domain and public discourse.

Also, our comms officer at CISUR, Amanda Farrell-Low, is forever encouraging us to do it! And I have a couple of colleagues—Tim Stockwell and Adam Sherk— who have written several great pieces for The Conversation, and not wanting to be outdone even more than usual, I thought maybe I should step up and write one.


  • Did you have any misgivings beforehand?

Time was a worry. I don’t have time to do a lot of things.

 

  • How time consuming was it?

It wasn’t such a heavy lift. The articles are short—around 800 to 1,000 words. And they can be conversational. And although they include citations, the writing is not exacting in the same way as writing a manuscript. I think it is important for other prospective writers to understand this, as most academics already feel impossibly over-committed.

 

  • Were you supported throughout the process?

Yes! Amanda from CISUR helped me pitch. And then Patricia Nicholson, the health editor, she gave me a lot of help as I’m not always the most tech savvy. I did feel very well supported.

 

  • Did you have any control over the story and the deadline?

Yeah. The second story, I couldn’t do it by the deadline. I asked if I could have more time. It reminded me of getting an extension on a college term paper! The editor was flexible.

 

  • Did you enjoy the process, or was it a grind?

No, no, it was fun. I mean, a lot of us academics like to pontificate! It's a nice platform to express yourself. You can bring in research and opinion. You can synthesize across the literature. So, it’s pretty creative compared to scientific writing. That makes it enjoyable.  

 

  • Did anyone read your articles?

I’m told they have been read 27,108 times in 10 different countries—Singapore, Ireland, Germany, UK, Australia, Kenya, India, US, France, and Canada.

 

  • Did you reach a different audience to the one you usually reach?

I think so! Apparently, they were published in places like Sud Ouest in France, Daily Nation in Kenya, and Business Standard and The Wire in India.

 

  • What advice would you give anyone who is thinking of writing?

Try it at least once, and you'll probably be glad you did.

 

  • Do you think PhD students and postdocs should give it a go?

They definitely should! Their minds have yet to become ossified, and they need publications.

 

  • How about experienced or tenured professors? Why should they write?

Oh gosh, you know, I'm planning to put this in my epitaph! Seriously, though, this is great for reaching public and policy audiences, reaching international audiences and filling the knowledge mobilization sections on grant applications!