{"id":2990,"date":"2019-09-17T03:35:38","date_gmt":"2019-09-17T03:35:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.oregonstate.edu\/gemmlab\/?p=2990"},"modified":"2019-09-17T03:35:43","modified_gmt":"2019-09-17T03:35:43","slug":"what-does-it-mean-to-be-an-effective-science-communicator","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.oregonstate.edu\/gemmlab\/2019\/09\/17\/what-does-it-mean-to-be-an-effective-science-communicator\/","title":{"rendered":"What does it mean to be an effective science communicator?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Dominique Kone, Masters Student in Marine Resource\nManagement<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

To succeed as a scientist, you not only need to be\nwell-trained in the scientific method, but also be familiar with the standards\nand practices in your discipline. While many scientists are skilled in the\nproduction of scientific information, fewer are as well-prepared to disseminate\nand communicate that information to diverse audiences. As a graduate student,\nlearning effective science communication is one of my top priorities because I\nbelieve scientific information can and should be accessible to everyone. As\nI\u2019ve been building and expanding upon my own communication toolbox, I\nconstantly ask myself, what is effective science communication? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Simply put, communication can be thought of as the two-way transfer of information and knowledge. On one side, information is broadcasted and amplified out into the world, and on the other side, that information is received and understood, ideally. If communicating were this easy, people would never have to worry about being misinterpreted. Yet, this ideal is far from reality, and information is oftentimes misconstrued and\/or ignored. This scenario is quite common when scientists communicate technical concepts or findings to non-scientists, either due to differences in communication styles or terminology use. In connecting with these types of audiences, I think effective science communication is a function of three key qualities: intentionality, creativity, and knowledge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Source: ISTOCKPHOTO\/THINKSTOCK <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Intentionality<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

When scientists communicate information, being intentional with what they say and when they say it, can greatly influence how messages resonate with their audience. There\u2019s often a big disconnect between the very specific scientific terms scientists use and the terms their non-technical audiences use. One way scientists can bridge this disconnect and be more intentional (thoughtful), is with word-choice. When scientists change their words, this doesn\u2019t mean they \u201cdumb down\u201d their presentations; rather, they substitute words to better explain concepts in terms the audience easily understands. For example, if I tell the public \u201cI\u2019m predicting sea otter populations at carrying capacity in Oregon using a Bayesian habitat model\u201d, this sentence has three jargon words (carrying capacity, Bayesian, model) that likely mean nothing to this audience. Instead, what I say is, \u201cI\u2019m predicting how many sea otters could live in Oregon based on available habitat\u201d. Now I\u2019m speaking in terms that resonate with my audience, and I have effectively made the same point. An intentional science communicator knows how to deliver information to meet their audience\u2019s ability to take in and process that information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Source: Andrew Grossman <\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Creativity<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Scientists typically follow structured and defensible\nprotocols when conducting analyses. Far fewer standards apply to how they\ncommunicate that research, which can free them up to be more creative in their\ndelivery. One way scientists can be both intentional and creative is by using analogies,\nexamples, or metaphors. When I give talks, I always talk about the high\nmetabolism of sea otters (30% of their own body weight in food, daily) (Costa\n1978, Riedman & Estes 1990). Most researchers seem intrigued by this fact,\nbut anyone younger than the age of 10, honestly, could care less. To catch\ntheir attention, I always follow up this fact by estimating how many pizza\nslices I would need to eat to reach that daily food requirement, based on my\nown weight (230 pizza slices, if you\u2019re curious). By using this analogy, my young\naudience not only understands my point, but they\u2019re now way more interested\nbecause they can\u2019t fathom a human eating that much pizza. It\u2019s a simple\ncomparison, but effective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Creativity can also be applied to the different ways scientific information is delivered. Scientists regularly publish their work in peer-review scientific journals to reach other scientists. But they also produce short reports and fact sheets to briefly summarize studies for managers or policy-makers. They hold events or workshops to engage stakeholders. They use blogs<\/a>, webpages<\/a>, and YouTube<\/a> to reach the broader public. They even use Twitter<\/a> to share papers! Scientists do so much more than just publishing their work, and they have several options for delivering and communicating their research. All these different options create more opportunities for scientists to experiment and find new and exciting ways to deliver their science. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
A stoic scientist communicating to the masses. Source: Dave Allen via NIWA.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Knowledge<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s important for scientists to be knowledgeable about\ntheir subjects when communicating, but they can\u2019t know everything. Rather, I\nthink a more reasonable goal is for scientists to be comfortable and prepared\nto say what they know and what they don\u2019t know. Scientists have a thirst for\nknowledge, but some communicate false information because they have a drive to\nanswer every question they\u2019re asked. They can sometimes get into trouble when they\u2019re\nasked to talk about something they\u2019re less familiar with. When asked a\ndifficult question, I\u2019ve witnessed a lot of scientists say, \u201cI don\u2019t know\u201d, or,\n\u201cI don\u2019t know, but I could speculate [insert answer] based on other information\u201d.\n This response allows them to answer the\nquestion, while also being truthful. The alternative could have real negative\nimplications (e.g. a certain President spreading\nfalse information<\/a> about a dangerous hurricane).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Aside from factual knowledge, contextual knowledge is underappreciated in science communication, but can be vitally important. Some management issues are politically contentious, and effective science communicators can play vital roles in those management processes or actions. One study found that by scientists engaging with stakeholders in the planning process for renewable energy development along the coast of Maine, community members felt the development planning process was being conducted in the most effective manner (Johnson et al. 2015). In this example, a seemingly contentious situation was defused because scientists understood the political and social landscape, and were able to carefully communicate with stakeholders before any management actions took place. Scientists are not required to engage with stakeholders to this degree, but being sensitive to the broader (political, social, cultural, economic) environment in which those stakeholders live and operate can help them better target your messages and relieve potential tension.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
GEMM Lab booth at Hatfield Marine Science Day! Source: Leila Lemos.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

These three qualities (intentionality, creativity, and\nknowledge) are not meant to serve as hard, fast science communication rules.\nInstead, these are simply some qualities I\u2019ve observed in other scientists\nskilled in effective communication. Scientists don\u2019t automatically enter this\nspace as expert communicators. For those that are great at it, it probably took\nsome time and practice to hone their skills and find their own voice. It might\ncome more naturally to some scientists, but I would argue most \u2013 like myself \u2013 have\nto work really hard to develop those skills. As I progress through my career, I\u2019m\nexcited to develop my own skills in effective science communication, and perhaps\ndiscover new and exciting approaches along the way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

References:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Costa, D. P. 1978. The ecological energetics, water, and\nelectrolyte balance of the California sea otter (Enhydra lutris). Ph.D.\ndissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reidman, M. L. and J. A. Estes. 1990. The sea otter (Enhydra\nlutris): behavior, ecology, and natural history. United States Department of\nthe Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report. 90: 1-126.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Johnson, T. R., Jansujwiez, J. S., and G. Zydlewski. 2015.\nTidal power development n Maine: stakeholder identification and perceptions of\nengagement. Estuaries and Coasts<\/em> 38: S266-S278. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Dominique Kone, Masters Student in Marine Resource Management To succeed as a scientist, you not only need to be well-trained in the scientific method, but also be familiar with the standards and practices in your discipline. While many scientists are skilled in the production of scientific information, fewer are as well-prepared to disseminate and … Continue reading What does it mean to be an effective science communicator?<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8610,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2990","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.oregonstate.edu\/gemmlab\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2990","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.oregonstate.edu\/gemmlab\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.oregonstate.edu\/gemmlab\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.oregonstate.edu\/gemmlab\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8610"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.oregonstate.edu\/gemmlab\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2990"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.oregonstate.edu\/gemmlab\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2990\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2996,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.oregonstate.edu\/gemmlab\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2990\/revisions\/2996"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.oregonstate.edu\/gemmlab\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2990"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.oregonstate.edu\/gemmlab\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2990"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.oregonstate.edu\/gemmlab\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2990"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}