Read on Twitter
A couple of hours ago, @LizNeeley and @edyong209 hosted a fascinating discussion on 'How To Talk About Coronavirus - Science Communication and Sense Making for Scientists and Healthcare professionals'. Here is the link to the hour long discussion - https://www.crowdcast.io/e/NeeleyYong/1
If you are a current/aspiring scicommer or science journalist, we highly recommend listening to the entire 1hr discussion, which is filled with key points and insights.
However, if you dont have the time and need a quick round-up of points, follow along this thread!
However, if you dont have the time and need a quick round-up of points, follow along this thread!
Liz and Ed start out by confirming what we all feel - these are unprecedented times, especially for scicommers and science journalists. Even though many have been training for such events, it is still difficult to grapple with new threats, lack of info and the uncertainty
Ed mentions how he has adopted this approach of teaching readers to think through the uncertainties, rather than throwing facts at them. And for this he works hard to set up frameworks and 'foregrounding' that lay the foundation.
Ofcourse, this means approaching multiple experts across domains such as sociologists, anthropologists, historians of science. Inevitably, although his stories start out as science stories, they become so much more than just science.
And this is what helps weave his writing well
And this is what helps weave his writing well
Ed also makes a fine distinction between science communicators and science journalists. Comms tend to focus on the core of celebrating and showcasing science, whereas journos have the added responsibility of holding science accountable and uncovering its' flaws.
Liz asks - how do you make a decision about what to cover and how? Ed - Normal science journalism instincts don't work well in cases like this. A published paper is the basic unit of what a scijourno can cover, but it is not helpful in times like these when things move fast
You cannot write/cover paper by paper because the reader cannot unite concepts and info across your writing because it leaves a 'jittery' image of science in the audience's eyes. This stroboscopic view amplifies the risks and uncertainty, exact opposite of the intended effect.
Working with @storycollider , Liz talks about using stories as 'sense making devices' rather than just chunking and presenting bits of raw information. She mentions 3 key points -
1. Communication has to be accurate, sometimes at the cost of precision
2. Communication must endure in people's minds and
3. It must be used to create resilient frameworks of understanding in people's minds. This protects against the fast ebb and flow of raw information
2. Communication must endure in people's minds and
3. It must be used to create resilient frameworks of understanding in people's minds. This protects against the fast ebb and flow of raw information
On uncertainty, Ed adds that changing views based on changing info can potentially look like flip-flopping up close. But instead of just providing the correct info, grounding it, explaining it and showing the evidence will help the audience understand the concepts and motivations
Liz talks about how its vital to understand how the human mind works. We all use mental models and heuristics to understand the world around us. Forcing us to think slowly and deeply does not help.
Understanding how the audience understands is key to tailor our message
Understanding how the audience understands is key to tailor our message
Misinformation = False information generated by a genuine misunderstanding or mistake
Disinformation = False information generated by an organized and targeted campaign with with deliberate actors and goals eg. Propaganda
Disinformation = False information generated by an organized and targeted campaign with with deliberate actors and goals eg. Propaganda
Liz's tips to engage with your family, friends and local community - Pick your battles, start small, reinforce shared values and bonds, encourage skepticism
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/how-talk-about-coronavirus/609118/
Liz's Zotero library for papers on the science of scicomm -
https://www.zotero.org/groups/2343663/the_story_collider
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/how-talk-about-coronavirus/609118/
Liz's Zotero library for papers on the science of scicomm -
https://www.zotero.org/groups/2343663/the_story_collider
Liz adds - DO NOT REPEAT wrong information, hearing it multiple times will make it easier to believe. Say the thing that is correct and provide assurance, ask about why they believe what they believe and have a discussion, not a confrontation.
Ed's suggestions of accounts to follow -
@EpiEllie
@JuliaLMarcus
@ekvraga
@LeticiaBode https://callingbullshit.org/
@EpiEllie
@JuliaLMarcus
@ekvraga
@LeticiaBode https://callingbullshit.org/
We end with Ed's recent article - https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/05/patchwork-pandemic-states-reopening-inequalities/611866/
This 'patchwork' pandemic maps on many older patchworks of classism, social inequality, racism and privilege. Scicomm can be helpful to make people appreciate our commonalities.
We are all in this together.
This 'patchwork' pandemic maps on many older patchworks of classism, social inequality, racism and privilege. Scicomm can be helpful to make people appreciate our commonalities.
We are all in this together.
