Hey,
Thanks to those of you who sent in your advice for scientists! If you don't care about that, wait until September - I figured there was too much here to cram in normal reviews. In addition to summarizing your advice, I also added some of my own advice, and have a case study I love with a novel and effective way to communicate risk to inform medical decisions (the "micromort").
YOUR ADVICE FOR SCIENTISTS:
There was a lot of agreement in the advice for scientists. Copilot gave me a summary (unasked for) and it picked up on the same trend I noticed; while most people focused on improving communication, people identifying as non-scientists emphasized clarifying how to use the results, while scientists focused more on helping people to understand the results.
Here’s the Copilot summary:
“The analysis reveals two key insights:
- Scientists: The advice emphasizes improving communication and ensuring it resonates with scientific understanding and accessibility.
- Non-scientists: The focus is on providing actionable insights, clarity in implications, and supporting decision-making processes.
Here is a bit more of what you all shared:
- Before starting research, meet w/ the people you hope to inform to understand their needs and constraints. Iterate with them as research progresses to get feedback and check for understanding.
- Be super clear about "directive" (but not "prescriptive") messages. What decisions can your work inform and what do decision-makers need to know and do? Too much nuance and complexity can be paralyzing.
- Consider if "less data" could be enough to meet the decision needs of the problem you’re researching. Only collect more data if it can accelerate action (not delay it), e.g. by providing rigor or clarity decision-makers require.
- Communicate more often in the language your audience needs. Get training on how to communicate to different audiences and practice what you learn. Don’t forget to "talk less, smile more" (and I’d add “listen more” as something many scientists don’t do enough of, I have to work really hard at it to be even mediocre).
- Write with less jargon & more context. Explain trends, compare abstract numbers to things people understand (note: see the case study I include below for a great example).
- Be more open w/ sharing data and tools to support collective learning.
- Adapt when things aren't working - don't hold onto pet theories.
MY ADVICE FOR SCIENTISTS:
I was struck when reading the above that some of it overlaps pretty well with the advice in a paper I co-authored (on helping scientists have impact) that many of you contributed to. The paper has a nice decision tree for scientists, and here’s a simple graphical abstract of the paper:
https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/f0f15c79-e734-4f7c-ab83-4708e9b25fe3/csp2210-fig-0001-m.jpg
In the spirit of communicating for different audiences, we made a lot of companion products for that paper (http://impactblog.sciencejon.com ), from a 2-page high-level overview aimed at college students (one of my moms requested a version of the paper she could give to her gerontology students “without all that science bullshit”), a video recording of a webinar, a panel discussion w/ research impact experts, and more.
Finally, someone also recently reminded me that I wrote a blog when I left TNC in 2019 w/ some advice for scientists; it's missing plenty but think it holds up pretty well! https://sciencejon.blogspot.com/2019/02/tips-for-being-more-effective-scientist.html
A CASE STUDY OF REALLY EFFECTIVE SCIENCE COMMUNICATION:
Given the focus on not only thinking about your audience but improving both their understanding AND their ability to make informed decisions, I wanted to share a great example of that I just learned about (via this video overview). People struggle to understand the risk of relatively safe medical procedures (like anesthesia). The “micromort” is an activity with a one in a million chance of resulting in death (Howard 1989, “Microrisks for Medical Decision Making”), allowing you to compare risks between activities you understand and those new to you. Table 1 in Keage and Loetscher 2018 has a nice comparison of understandable risks, from 1 micromort (walking 27 miles), to going under anesthesia once (10 μmorts = walking 270 miles), to giving birth (120 μmorts), and even climbing Mt Everest (12,000 μmorts). Doctors can use this to explain risk, as in Sieber and Adams 2017 which note the risk of getting lymphoma from breast implants is lower than a day of skiing or drinking 500 mL of wine. Table 1 in Ahmad et al. 2015 has a table comparing the risk of a range of medical procedures, making a great complement to the “everyday risk” table in Keage and Loetscher (e.g., elective open heart surgery is risky, but 5 times safer than emergency open heart surgery).
FULL RESPONSES OF ADVICE FOR SCIENTISTS:
- Adapt. Too many people in the science/conservation world choose what works best for them & not the collective. Too many people in this profession refuse to use tools that would make their data/knowledge broadly accessible, opting for private file sharing in an artisinal, hand-shared way. Our profession, our progress toward our goals, can't operate in a vacuum - we are dependant on others & the longer we continue to operate in a me-first way, the less likely our needs & goals are met. Adopting a group-focused/sharing-first mentality is critical at this moment in time.
- Communicate in a way that resonates with the scientific understanding and language accessibility of the general public.
- Before starting a new science project or initiative, meet with those you are intending to inform through your work to understand their needs and constraints. Continue to use these connections to iteratively test your thinking and deliverables throughout the process of undertaking your work.
- Less jargon, more focus on directional implications (rather than the third decimal), make the "why" of your research not a research-focused 'why' (e.g. i'm looking into this because it will tell us whether x impacts y) but a real-world 'why' (e.g. I'm looking into this because it will tell us whether we should allow / support / restrict / include / exclude xyz in this or that policy / discussion / legislation / budget etc.)
- Realize that many land managers are spread extremely thin and actually benefit from directive messaging, which is a careful balance to not lean towards prescriptive messaging, but is a different approach than only presenting very nuanced or complex statements that leave people with very little clarity as to what they should be doing or not doing as land managers. I would like to see scientists speaking with precision about what's know and not known, and then verbally distinguishing that they are stepping into a different space to offer clear advice on key decision-points.
- Recognize the opportunity cost of more or better information: only ask for more data when you are certain that it will accelerate, rather than delay, action.
- Present information in context. Absolute numbers (especially large ones) in isolation mean very little. Present enough historic or comparative context to explain trends. Scale numbers to human-scale (millions or billions are incomprehensible in everyday life).
- Communicate, communicate, communicate. Find ways to disseminate findings (published and unpublished) and package in ways your audience can understand and can inform policy or action. Also, science is slow, but try to find ways to move quicker while still maintaining accuracy and scientific integrity.
- Practice communicating the key messages of your science to non-scientists frequently! Do less: explaining the finer details or process. Do more: breaking it down into 1. The problem 2. What solution your science offers 3. Why the listener / reader should care, and why now. 4. What you’d like them to do (call to action).
- My advice for scientists is simple: communications training. Get as much practice as possible explaining your work to all kinds of audiences - talk to journalists, visit elementary school class rooms, post on social media, get on a university podcast. The more you talk about your science, the better you'll be at doing so. Authenticity is key - don't be afraid to be funny, earnest and geeky. It is more important than ever for "regular people" to get exposed to scientists of all kinds. This is necessary to build trust in the scientific community writ large.
- I’m not sure “effective” is meaningful outside of a specific decision context, but I strive to be plain about my values, biases, and assumptions in the hope that candor builds a foundation of trust for better communication. But “talk less, smile more” also isn’t necessarily bad either…
Sincerely,
Jon
p.s. Since my mushroom dinner at a meal during a work event came in a little cauldron for some reason, I was asked to look like a wizard and this was the result
p.p.s. If you'd like to keep track of what I write as well as what I read, I always link to both my informal blog posts and my formal publications (plus these summaries) at http://sciencejon.blogspot.com/
