As researchers, most of us still report our science in the same old way we’ve done it since school: title, authors, materials and methods, results, conclusions etc….you know the deal. This works for publications and peer-to-peer but are you increasingly being asked to explain what you do to ‘non-experts’? Maybe you love this aspect of your work, maybe you find it challenging – in any case it requires a very different approach. Here are a few ideas that might help.
Ask yourself who is your ‘end user’?
Everyone will tell you that one of the first rules of communication is “tailor your message to your audience… blah, blah blah…”
I think we can safely assume that you would never consider going into the depths of String Theory with a class of school kids, opting instead to explain things in a way that they’ll understand. A different way of looking at it is to try and set up a chain reaction, allowing the person you communicate with to then use the information for something. This could be passing it on to someone else, or rethinking their opinion or behaviour for example. Your audience should never be the end user, try giving them the tools to be able to pass the message along.
One of the biggest mistakes we make as scientists is feeling that our audience needs to understand how things work before we can begin to explain our research. This works fine with an intellectually curious audience but can actually be negative with non-experts – when people don’t understand, they feel stupid and just switch off. There’s a great article over at Slate that goes into more details on this with references to some nice studies if you want to know more, but essentially, ask yourself how much your audience really needs to know to be interested in what you say. Ok, so no schoolroom lectures - how do you really engage your audience?
Get personal and make your audience look good
The great American writer John Steinbeck noted rather sceptically “If a story is not about the hearer he/she will not listen.” It’s obviously much easier to talk to an audience on a subject that affects them directly, like a possible cure for Alzheimer’s or how much their water costs them, for example. But Steinbeck was only half right, probably because he lived in an age before social media. We naturally pick up on things that are new/crazy/funny/odd/frightening (delete as appropriate). So, if you can’t make your research personal, ask yourself if you have something that will surprise or impress people.
CERN is a great example of this – not many of us can see the direct application of the Higgs Boson in our daily lives, but the idea of a 27km underground accelerator filled with superconducting magnets and cooling systems that use as much electricity as a small town is fascinating!
Can you give your audience something that will make them look good at a dinner party or get plenty of likes on social media when they relate what they’ve heard?
The last option is scandal, but unless you’re willing to falsify a few results, get a couple of papers retracted, and ruin your career, this isn’t the recommended option!
If you’ve ever been to a start-up seed night, you’ll have noticed that there is a pretty standard formula for pitching:
- There’s a problem,
- I can fix it,
- This is how much money I need and it can make you rich.
Ok, so you’re not a start-up but you still have to ‘sell’ your idea. So set the stage, make sure people know what the problem or the question is (and if it affects them directly – see 3 above) and don’t start with your science. Once they’re tuned into the issue, then tell them about how you’re trying to fix/answer it. Leave the money part for later.
Use your platforms & take yourself out of your comfort zone
Nobody gets good at anything by chance - sure genetics help, but you got your brain didn’t you? Even if you think you’re never going to be the Usain Bolt of the academic world, the old adage about practice goes for science communication too. This means you can’t wait to be asked – get out of your comfort zone and sign up for Falling Walls Lab Tokyo, Pint of Science Japan, Nerd Nite Tokyo, your own institution’s outreach programmes, or any of the events available around you!
Offer articles for your department’s or university’s websites/blogs/social media and if you’re working for an institution with some kind of central communication unit, make sure they know who you are and when you publish. At first it might be the most frightening thing you’ve ever done but jump out of a plane (with a parachute!) enough times and that stomach-churning fear starts to come with a buzz.
What if none of these platforms exist where you are? Well, maybe you’re just the right person to start one!
Please tell us how your interest in science communication developed.
I have always enjoyed the reporting side of science (presentations, reviews, posters etc.) but the big ‘revelation’ for me was during my PhD in Mucosal Immunology at Oxford. My funding body was part of an initiative called ‘Researchers in Residence’ that encouraged scientists to go into primary schools and teach three lessons on their subject. We got some basic coaching and then I was left on my own with 30 eight-year olds! I worked harder on those three lessons than anything else, and it was a real baptism of fire, but those kids had so much enthusiasm, it was infectious.
Why do you think science communication is important?
Research no longer happens in Ivory Towers – funding is increasingly competitive and from a wider range of sources. It could be described as a ‘buyer’s’ market, and if you’re trying to sell your science in this environment, you need a great pitch. I think it’s no coincidence that countries where a higher proportion of funding for universities comes from non-governmental sources, like the US and the UK, have a more developed science communication scene.
Upheavals like the 1998 autism-MMR vaccine falsehood have thankfully made scientists a lot more proactive about communicating and creating links with the public. But the continuous drip feed of pseudoscience on social media needs scientists to be constantly vigilant and counter with arguments that are relevant to people.
Lastly, improving science communication to non-experts can only be a good thing for communication between peers. After all, how many of us have sat through terrible scientific presentations given by colleagues or even world-leaders in our field?
What is the difference between science communication and journalism?
Science communication is extremely broad and encompasses anything from school’s outreach to diplomacy. In my opinion, good journalism is an essential tool for science communication as it focuses on the relevance of science rather than just the research itself. It also tends to have a more ‘birds-eye’ view of research which is important for joining the dots across disciplines and seeing how things fit together – for example the social and economic changes we can expect with increasing numbers of robots in the workforce.
“Fake news” is very much in the headlines these days. What impact is this having on science communication?
I think fake news is actually a huge opportunity for science communication on two fronts: Firstly, there is now a lot of research going into detecting, tracking and heading off fake news, so hopefully science will help us sift out the real information from the fake. Secondly, amid all the noise, reputable scientists are seen as trusted sources for information, for the media and public alike. But they need to step up and assume this responsibility.
In your opinion, what are some of the biggest challenges facing researchers in terms of science communication?
Finding the time! As science communication is not seen as an essential part of a researcher’s role, it gets pushed to the back after research, teaching, admin, conferences and all the masses of other things that scientists have to fit into a day. I also think it’s the responsibility of universities/research institutions to make resources for science communication available for their scientists. Both have a vested interest in promoting their science and having professional communicators working with experts is the most productive way of doing things.
How can young researchers to strengthen their science communication skills?
Read, watch or listen to good science communication! There are some great popular science podcasts and blogs, and you could spend a lifetime surfing through talks on TED for example. Not only will this give you examples of how to communicate better, it will also widen your general scientific knowledge. Many scientists’ general knowledge can be pretty limited since they’re so focused on their particular research area.
What career opportunities are there in field science communication?
I’m not sure I’m the best person to give advice here; I haven’t followed the ‘typical’ path, which would probably be to get a science communication qualification after your PhD. I took any opportunity I could get to widen my experience as much as possible, either through teaching, writing or public outreach, for example. I also left science for a few years to work in sports marketing. Ultimately, I think you have to just put yourself out there as much as possible, gain visibility and widen your experience.
Could you share some advice for researchers trying to communicate their research to the non-academic community?
Ask yourself why people should listen to you (and being a well-published/well-funded scientist is not an answer here!). Your audience needs to gain something – either information that is relevant to them, or something they’re never heard before that piques their interest. Above all, share your passion for your subject!
Thank you Dr. Fowler!
Be an agent of positive change: empower others to lead the conversation
Scientific research plays a fundamental role propelling society forward using innovative and revolutionary ideas. As a researcher, I was committed to this mission, and for most of my career I was keen to get work done. The thrill of living on the edge between the known and the unknown is exhilarating, and for the most part I wanted to accomplish something greater than myself. However, when it came to sharing my results with the world, I realised that I could not portray the impact of my work in a way that was satisfactory. For the most part, my peers would appreciate the skill and the technology developed, but whatever I had to contribute would just be swallowed into a sea of similar publications and soon forgotten, or at least it felt that way.
In pursuit of making an impact outside of my lab, I decided to dive into the world of science communication. By doing so, I found one big misconception on how I was handling my work. Whilst research itself is important, to truly understand how it will affect people’s lives and how they should be a part of the conversation is key. I have recognised now that I ignored some of these aspects during my period as a researcher, which led to developments that, albeit technically sound, would never reach people. Conferences, for example, are important tools for technical assessment and establishing collaborations, but they don’t give perspective on the true outreach potential of one’s work. Since society is the place where all these developments go ultimately, establishing dialogue and getting feedback from your target audience can boost your research and your overall outreach. As a science communicator working in a science museum, affiliated researchers yearn for feedback given by visitors, because it shapes how they will further conduct their experiments and defines which pressing issues should be tackled next.
By investing time on science communication, and now pursuing a career in it, I saw a way of impacting society in a more meaningful way. I believe that we－researchers, communicators, or educators－all have a moral imperative to impart knowledge and create environments where people can easily learn about complex topics, so that they can become agents of positive change in the world surrounding them. If done successfully, people can decide on their own how to lead a conversation, from a standpoint of evidence-based science. We live in a society where many are ignorant about all sorts of pressing matters, just because it seems too difficult to be a part of the conversation. While it is true that certain fields are more abstract, and therefore more difficult to grasp, there is always a way to convey enough information for basic understanding and appreciation. For those skeptical of space exploration, for example, despite most developments not affecting us directly in the short term, several products we use nowadays come from years and years of space research (LEDs, better firefighter gear, solar panels, etc.). Furthermore, increased awareness is required because certain issues are or will soon be affecting our lives (Climate change, artificial intelligence, etc.). To be a science communicator is to make sure that information can be easily digested, whilst empowering people to lead meaningful discussions.
In order to successfully communicate science, however, one cannot expect to always be thorough and to give a proper, technical explanation. The biggest challenge is conveying a meaningful message, whilst tailoring one’s speech to different audiences. On a daily basis, I talk to people from all ages and backgrounds, from 10 year-olds to 80 year-olds, from elementary school children to high-school dropouts, from office workers to Ph.D. laureates, and so on. Every person has a unique perspective and it is up to us, the ones who actually hold the information, to convey the message. The message is always the same, but how you approach it should differ. In order to be effective at it, one needs training. Communication is a skill, and as any other, it takes time and effort to develop it. Researchers should dedicate time to work on it, so to empower people with the agency to be a part of the discussion. That is what we should all aim for.
The EU’s flagship research and innovation funding programme, Horizon 2020, bases its strategy on the approach called Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) which anticipates and assesses potential implications and societal expectations with regard to research and innovation. An RRI approach implies that societal actors (researchers, citizens, policy makers, business, third sector organisations, etc.) work together during the whole research and innovation process in order to better align both the process and its outcomes with the values, needs and expectations of society.
In practice, RRI is implemented as a package that includes multi-actor and public engagement in research and innovation, enabling easier access to scientific results, the take up of gender and ethics in the research and innovation content and process, and formal and informal science education. RRI promotes ‘Science with and for Society’ via, for example, actions on public engagement, open access, science education.
This translates also into objectives for communication and outreach within all projects funded under Horizon 2020, including the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions Individual Fellowships. Both within one’s proposal and within one’s project, a strategy for communication and outreach is necessary for success.
Within MSCA, outreach activities are meant to engage a large audience and to bring knowledge and expertise on a particular topic to the general public. Outreach activities can take several forms, such as school presentations, workshops, public talks and lab visits, etc. The objective of outreach is to explain the benefits of research to a larger public , and it implies an interaction between the researcher and the public.
Communication, on the other hand, only goes in one direction from the sender to the receiver. It may refer to pieces or articles on the internet or in mainstream media outlets. Successful communication requires a clear language and attractive scientific subject with outstanding results that can catch the media's attention
MSCA fellows are indeed expected to engage in communication and outreach activities as an integral part of their fellowship (see infobox). In the MSCA, public engagement is an important part of communication. The primary goal of public engagement activities is to create awareness among the general public of the research work performed under these projects and its implications for citizens and society. The type of outreach activities could range from press articles and participation in European Researchers' Night events to presenting science, research and innovation activities to students from primary and secondary schools or universities in order to develop their interest in research careers.
More about science communication within H2020:
Communication and outreach activities requirement for MSCA fellows