In
a class I am currently taking, we had a panel of guest speakers come talk to us
about this very subject. All of the members of the panel have some
involvement with reporting research or serve as public relations experts. They outlined a few of the difficulties
that accompany reporting science to the public. One reporter read a list of things reporters feel about
scientists. On the list were
statements such as “We think you are boring”, or “You live in your own little
world”. My personal favorite was
“You use big words to sound smart and talk down to people”. It did make me think about the words I
use to describe my research. My
husband is a landscape architecture major and sometimes he has had to ask me to
explain something in lay terms for him when we are having a conversation about
my research. He is not immersed in
the research industry like I am, and it was a good reminder for me. Converting our research into lay terms
is important if we want the public to understand the scope and importance of
what we are doing in our labs.
Another panel member who is a radio host also
had some good advice. He explained
the importance of knowing your audience.
Obviously we can speak in research terms when we are presenting to our
peers, professors, etc. However,
if doing a presentation or interview with someone outside of our research
realm, we need to know who we are talking to and try our best to portray our
information using words that are understood or easily explained. Being able to talk on multiple levels
is important, for reporters and the public alike. He also said that it is important to remember that someone
who is uneducated is not dumb.
Those are two very different things. We should look at ways to explain things and excited them
about a subject, therefore educating without making anyone look stupid.
Overall, learning the perspectives and feelings
of reporters helped me see the other side a little bit. I am going to make a good effort in my
career to practice my skills of communication and be able to communicate on
lots of different levels. Hopefully
this will help me on many fronts, as well as create better relationships with the
media.
-Kate
-Kate
I thought the list of "stereotypes" that she presented about what reporters think of scientist (and vice versa) was interesting and frankly, a bit harsh. I was actually a little unnerved to hear some of those stereotypes coming from a public radio reporter. I will admit a bias of my own here...in my listening experience, I've come to the believe that NPR, UPR, etc. reporters seem to do a pretty good job educating themselves on the topic and not just regurgitating information that is fed to them. So if the general impression of scientists is coming off as too cerebral for even a reporter like that, than I think research scientists have some work to do in being more aware of their communication styles. On the flip side of that coin, perhaps the media can work on honing their skills at phrasing their questions so the scientist has clear guidelines for their answers.
ReplyDeleteSwitching gears...I am not a research scientist but I am in a science field and was raised in a home where scientific lingo was used casually, so I'm very comfortable with the language. I have occasionally been heckled by friends about being a bit "nerdy" or my use of "big words", which I don't do intentionally. Which serves as a simple reminder that everyone in a science field can be aware of how they talk and who they are talking to.
It was interesting in class discussing how the public buries their head in the sand and become willfully ignorant. The panel discussion seemed to point out that scientists are willfully ignorant in a different light. Sometimes, we as scientists are blissfully ignorant about the lack of education of the public. I don't mean to sound condescending in that statement. I mean that its frequently easier for us to say that "they don't get it because they don't try" or "they're ignorant" when the reality is, it's obviously a two way street. I've got a lot of my plate for material to cover every day I show up at the office, and my moments of academic rest are usually spent briefly glancing at articles of interest to me, usually like nationalgeographic.com or something along those lines. I certainly don't dive into political science matters, or study up on banking terminology and investment strategies. But I certainly get upset when my banker starts throwing out acronyms and acting like I should just know what he's saying to me. I'm not a proponent of compartmentalization, but life really does seem to be easier if we can remain blissfully unaware that the outside world exists. My question is, if I don't care enough to study investment strategies, should I have a right to be upset at my banker when he speaks over my head and talks me into things I realistically don't want? Or is it my fault for not properly informing myself? I think most people would state that while the banker might be a little unethical, ultimately it's my responsibility to educate myself and protect my own investments. So, should science be the same way? Resources exist for people to educate themselves. Sure, it's a tough job... but so is all that investment jargon. We all have different perspectives over what's difficult to do as individuals, we just need to come to terms with it.
ReplyDeletePart of the miscommunication between the science community and the public seems to occur when results of research are reported and the public hears that a problem was resolved or the research is conclusive when in reality the research is conclusive but leads to additional research. One component of a problem might be solved but the whole problem isn't solved. This leads to additional research reports which might be different than what was reported before giving the public the sense that skepticism is the best approach to the news. For example, it was reported that eggs cause high cholesterol and you should limit eggs to once a week. But further research showed that eggs have good cholesterol that helps to fight the bad cholesterol (I can't remember the HDL's or LDL's) and you should eat eggs regularly. While it is really confusing to those who hear the tidbits and heed them as a lifestyle change, scientists understand that the research really indicates a need for further study. Communication is essential in every aspect of life but certainly the scientific community deals issues that are potentially life and death and reporters and scientists alike have a huge responsibility to tell the story with carefully selected words so that the public is not misinformed. The public also bears responsibility about its reaction to science reporting.
ReplyDeleteHolly
As an amateur in research, I found it extremely helpful, yet intimidating to know that those are the sorts of issues I will have to deal with in the future. By becoming aware of what the media (and subsequently, the general public) thinks of scientists, it becomes that much easier to mold myself into a researcher who can appeal to my own work and communicate that with the media. The information I took away from this panel discussion was similar to yours, with more emphasis on knowing that the audience will generally understand. In this class, I've had a hard time understanding certain concepts when we begin talking about science and grants (things I haven't had much experience with yet), but our teacher makes sure to explain so I, a minority in the class, can understand. By making sure to appeal to all extremes of the audience, or starting at the basics and building upon ideas and concepts, effective communication between researchers and the public is more than possible! Awesome post Kate!
ReplyDelete