Communicating science as a process
Why this is so important...and how to do it
One of the most common misconceptions about science in the general public is that science is a collection of facts, rather than a process of learning about the world. This can lead to serious misunderstandings about what science is.
In communicating about science, this is therefore an important point to emphasize.
How can we do it? Here are some points I could think of (also as a reminder to myself), and I would love to hear from you about other ideas. It seems all these things are done in scientific manuscripts in some shape or form, but we often forget about it when talking to the public (like journalists, friends, family) or when writing press releases, drafting social media posts, or when releasing other pieces intended for the public.
Mention what is not known yet. Highlighting the gaps and limitations of knowledge is crucially important, because it signals very that we’re not at the end, but that there are always things we don’t know yet. This is not so easy to remember, especially when being caught up in the excitement of a finding, like when writing a press release, which is really about explaining what the finding is.
Explain how an idea came about. Such narratives can be helpful in explaining the context of work, and how it arose from previous research. In doing so, it makes clear that the work didn’t come out of nowhere. For example, as I was mulling over this problem, I came across this piece of information, and then this idea came.
Give historical context on the development of knowledge. This really is directly communicating the process and the progress that has been made through time. This can, for example, be progress in the methods used, allowing certain questions to be asked in the first place.
Emphasize curiosity. Start from an observation, and explain what thinking it triggered. Like, when I see a fairy ring, I wonder what is exactly going on in the soil when the fungus forming the fairy ring passes through.
Mention the failures along the way. Nobody likes to talk about the wrong turns that were taken and about the failures of research. But this can be very helpful in communicating the process of science. Like, we did a few years’ worth of work not seeing any clear effects on soil until we started looking at microplastic fibers rather than beads. It was then that we realized that the shape mattered.
Highlight scientific controversies. Explaining such different views makes clear the discourse that happens as a normal part of science progressing. This could entail introducing different perspectives or paradigms, different models, or different frameworks, or even different definitions.
What would you add to this list? Let me know in the comments!
This is a wonderful (and quite important) list! This topic is one I’ve been concerned with since I first noticed this stark gap between how science is conventionally taught to kids vs. how it is taught to potential future scientists. I’ve been chatting with this subject in various classes and seminars over the past couple years, and one thing I’ve realized is the importance of humanizing the scientist — scientists are just as fallible as anyone else!
I’m curious what you think about the possibility of positionality statements (that talk about the authors relationships to the study system and how their identity shapes the science) for the “hard” sciences.