Next Post > Practical visual literacy for science communication

---

Comments

• Natalie Yee 8 years ago

  Great blog, Killian! You summarized the concepts nicely and brought outside relevant content as well to expand upon what was discussed in class.

  It is interesting to note just how much of a role media plays in portraying science, and how this can be used both accurately or inaccurately, depending on what kind of effect the media wants to portray. Movies like Sharknado and Jaws enforce a deep fear of sharks, and although there is some truth in that, it is playing off of the thrill and general ignorance of how sharks behave.

  I think the activity produced interesting results because there were vast differences in what people considered to be strong displays of advocacy. There were some options that some groups indicated as the highest form of advocacy, whereas other groups didn't think twice about ruling it out.

• Krystal Yhap 8 years ago

  I think there is such an opportunity for scientists to engage the general public in the exploration of science through the use of media-in particular television shows and movies. I never gave it much thought until we discussed it last class but there is a great opportunity for scientists to educate the general public in a way that will leave a lasting impression about scientific processes and phenomenon. Sometimes I think scientists forget how important it is to meet people where they are and how useful it could prove to use platforms people depend on (knowingly or unknowingly) for information, like movies/television and social media. Having scientists consult on movies and television shows could allow for a more informed general public just like Finding Nemo allowed an opportunity for more people know what the East Australian Current is. I find people are more inclined to be open to scientific information and concepts when that scientific information is combined with scenarios they can relate to or stories they find entertaining. If people are going to use platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Buzz-feed, and television shows to get information anyway, why not take advantage of that and use those platforms to educate without scientists compromising their scientific integrity. Understanding how to effectively use narratives is something that I hope more scientists try to do. This blog post was really good, I think it accurately displayed what we discussed in class and the struggle that goes on with mediated realities, science, and the way people receive and exchange information.

• W. Cruz 8 years ago

  In terms of science advocacy its definition is "a person who works for a cause or group". This is something personal that each one interpret base on their surrounding and life. Each have a different perspective and good understanding of it and science communication skills is the key of success.
  
  "If scientists want to advocate for science, they need to add some additional skills to an already exceptional skill set. Being outstanding in one's field does not make one an engaging communicator. Learning how to communicate science to a lay audience is as much an art as it is a science, and more institutions offer such courses."

  "For science policy, it is incumbent on researchers to gain a better understanding of the relationship between science and policy, the roles of the executive and legislative branches of government, and the responsibility that comes with being a reputable advocate. A communicator extraordinaire may do more harm than good if she or he does not understand or appreciate the broader context within which the debate over science policy is conducted."

  Source:http://science.sciencemag.org/content/345/6194/243.full

• V Leitold 8 years ago

  One of the themes I found most interesting in our discussion about science communication was language choice, illustrated by the example that Kelly presented to us in class with the list of pairs of sophisticated/scientific vs. simple/common words, such as “duration” vs. “length” or “demonstrate” vs. “show”. In thinking about this, I remembered a presentation I had assisted at a recent conference (it is a recorded TED talk, so you can watch it if interested), where climate change communicator Susan Joy Hassol talked about the disconnect between scientists and the public, why people generally have a hard time understanding scientists, and how we might bridge this communication gap in order to effectively join forces to combat climate change. There is certainly a tendency in academic & scientific writing to use complicated language and plenty of jargon, to avoid repetition and narratives, and to let the data ‘speak for themselves’. Additionally, there are also a lot of words that both scientists and the public use, but they mean entirely different things to these different groups. For example, when scientists talk about “positive feedback” in relation to the greenhouse effect (a harmful trend), the public may interpret “positive” as a good thing. Similarly, “error” and “uncertainty” to a scientist mean a range of confidence around a predicted value, while to the public error just sounds “wrong” and uncertainty gives the impression that one is “not sure”. Apart from word choice, Hassol also emphasized the importance of being more careful about choosing ‘trusted messengers’ to communicate scientific information to the public, since people tend to listen to those more whom they share common values with. To conclude her talk, she said: “Words matter. So it’s time to change the words, so we can change the conversation – so we can change the world.” (Link: https://youtu.be/V-tEmE85QDE "ClimateTalk: Science and Solutions")

• Rebecca Wenker 8 years ago

  Good blog, Killian! I agree with Krystal, I think it's important that more scientists learn and choose to use the narrative structure. The general public is not going to read a complicated and dry science article - it's going to read one that relays an interesting and easy to understand message, or one that they can relate to.

  Along this note, as Killian mentioned in her blog, word and verb choice is crucial when writing scientifically. At the beginning of many scientists' education and careers (and in some cases, for a prolonged period afterwards), they don't believe writing is as vital of a skill as say, learning the scientific method. However, I would argue that it is equally as important, especially if you want to relay your information in an effective way. Scientists need to learn how to write, and write well. If they don't, how will they communicate their findings?

• Suzanne Spitzer 8 years ago

  I just wanted to further drive home the fish eyebrows metaphor, since I think it is such an entertaining and illuminating anecdote… In the movie, the artists made a deliberate and labor-intensive decision to consult marine experts and develop new graphic design technologies in order to make the movie scientifically and visually accurate. They painstakingly studied the appearance light flickering on the surface of water and the subtleties of fish locomotion in an effort to get everything just right—and yet they made a deliberate decision to include an obvious scientific inaccuracy: fish eyebrows. In the article linked below, the directing animator of the movie said “I would look at my own face in the mirror and imagine I had a tail on the back of it” to describe how he approached designing the characters. With this in mind, fish eyebrows most likely were a way to more effectively personify the characters in the narrative, so that viewers would watch Dory and Marlin interact on the screen and imagine themselves or someone they know having a similar conversation. Fish eyebrows were used as a way to invoke empathy in the audience by making the dialogue in the narrative more compelling and characters more relatable. As you mentioned in the blog, scientists can and should use storytelling techniques and narrative components to interest and engage a wider audience. Using the metaphor, we need to deliberately add fish eyebrows to our research, in a sense. What is that extra something that really helps others to engage others and help them to understand what we do and why it is important?

  TLDR: Fish eyebrows : Loveable and relatable fish characters :: Effective science communication : Engaging and relevant scientific research

  http://lifestyle.howstuffworks.com/family/activities/movie-fun-night/how-finding-nemo-works2.htm

• Noelle O. 8 years ago

  Although adding eyebrows to fish is inaccurate, I cannot imagine Finding Nemo without these modifications and agree that they were necessary. Also, from Disney's/the director's perspective, their agenda was to sell a story-not tell a 100% accurate tale. Perhaps to better communicate the science of marine species to the Finding Nemo audience, the reel at the end could have a footage of an actual blue tang swimming next to footage of Dory swimming. Biopics often show photos of the people on which the characters in the film are based.

  A more appalling example of misrepresenting science is the Discovery Channel's Shark Week. Discovery Channel is in a position to educate its viewers on life histories of sharks and the threats they face like shark finning and overfishing, potentially changing the perception that sharks are dangerous and need to be eliminated from the waters. Instead, they show "documentaries" that are based on falsehoods (i.e. talking about how an extinct megalodon may still be roaming the waters). On average, sharks kill 12 people per year while humans kill over 11,000 sharks per hour. I understand that they're trying to make money, but it's certainly frustrating, especially considered that most people get their science information from the TV and the internet.

  Sources:
  http://www.newsweek.com/2015/07/10/youre-100-wrong-about-shark-week-347736.html

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/27/sharks-killed-per-hour-infographic_n_2965775.html

• Rachel E 8 years ago

  I loved the Shark image! it is certainly true that media and Hollywood don't always put a lot of stock into scientific accuracy, BUT what they do do is get people excited and interested! And when someone is interested they are more receptive to learning new things! After the rise in popularity of all of the crime scene television shows, there was a subsequent rise in students studying crime scene investigation and going into law enforcement!
  I also think the use of narratives is very important. following a stream of facts like in a text book is often hard to do and I have to read 4 sentences, figure out how they all fit together, and then move on to the next four sentences. When science is written in narrative form, you don't have to figure out how things fit together because it is understood from the story structure!
  Great blog!