|
|
|||||
Scientific Communication SIG |
|||||
| Home | Activities | Our mission | Newsletter | Online resources | Contact us |
Issue 10(1), February 2003
T.R. Girill, STC Fellow, East Bay Chapter (trg@llnl.gov)
What if the techniques and principles of effective scientific communication that we routinely apply at work also had an important outreach role in schools? Improving the literacy of underperforming students in urban high schools is one of today’s great educational challenges. Language arts lessons grounded in research-based technical communication techniques offer an innovative, "authentic" way to improve how these students read and write. This approach addresses literacy problems on four levels at once:
Although many schools offer specialized, quasi-vocational work in journalism (or public relations), a broader approach based on technical writing concepts and practice would be more appropriate for more students. In the U.S. alone, almost five times as many people work as technical writers than as journalists. More important, even entry-level jobs of all kinds now demand some ability to critically read and write technical text. And some state high-school exit exams confront students with this need before they can graduate.
Most school literacy work assumes a background in literature (fiction, poetry, drama) and focuses on writing interpretations of literature. Technical writing offers a rich alternative focus on crafting nonfiction prose that meets the demands of life (for clarity, safety, etc.) as well as career (for useful description, effective collaboration, etc.). Scientific communication is much more than vocational training: it develops cognitive maturity and critical awareness in students indifferent to or unprepared for literary studies. In many situations, it promotes the thoughtful integration of learning English and learning science as well.
Fledgling writers (and readers) today need more than the usual language arts emphasis on grammar and stories. Equally valuable is active knowledge of the "science of effective prose", namely the psychological, linguistic, and engineering principles of text usability. Just revealing to students that such empirical research exists about text design and audience analysis can give them an exciting, first-ever look at the practical value of literacy and at specific new ways to achieve it. Using working professionals as mentors and involving classroom teachers who lack science writing experience themselves are the big challenges in implementing these tactical benefits.
Empirically validated, widely adopted textdesign techniques (psychologist Richard E. Mayer’s many ways to "increase problem-solving performance" of scientific prose, for example) can reshape and improve classroom writing exercises and other literacy-practice activities. Technical writing exercises can support struggling learners with scaffolding, can focus on specific student weaknesses (coherence signals, audience-appropriate detail), and can cultivate that invaluable sense of responsibility that every writer needs to help his or her readers succeed. Fine-grained practice in building or analyzing nonfiction text also directly prepares students for state-mandated proficiency tests.
For these four reasons, the same technical writing practices that we consider industry best practices now offer an urgently needed "second harvest" in high-school writing classrooms. The transfer from standard scientific communication to literacy development is not trivial, but it is rewarding. Since 1999, the East Bay STC chapter has tried this approach in English classes at Oakland’s Fremont High School (rated in the bottom 10% of all California schools in academic performance). The preliminary results are encouraging. The description-writing exercises we used are freely available, with commentary, online (www.ebstc.org/TechLit/trgintro3.html).
Mary Sue Garay and Stephen A. Bernhardt’s Expanding Literacies (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998) offers a book-length exploration of many of the same issues mentioned here.
by Geoff Hart (geoff-h@mtl.feric.ca)
On February 1st, the space shuttle Columbia was lost during re-entry. Although the inevitable newspaper photographs and television videos lacked the impact of the September 11th terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, they were still a chilling sight, particularly for those of us who have followed the space program since its inception in the 1960s. One of the recurring threads in the public discussion of the shuttle crash was the sense of shock that such a thing could have happened. I attribute this at least in part to the space program’s success to date: given the challenges of putting someone in orbit and bringing them safely back to Earth with the primitive technology currently available, I endlessly marvel at the courage displayed by astronauts.
Challenges? Primitive technology? Surely the challenges have been overcome, and NASA’s advanced technologies are something to marvel at? Not so. The challenges remain real, and the technology remains barely adequate to the tasks it must perform.
Today’s space program more closely resembles the early days of aviation than the rosy Star Trek pictures we see on television and in movie theatres. Spectacular crashes were a fact of life to early aviators—and indeed, part of the thrill in attending an air show was watching the "death-defying feats of skill" exhibited by the pilots. Air shows are still held annually, and pilots still die (Death can be defied for a time, never cheated), but aviation is now an accepted part of our lives—and one that’s statistically safer than driving to work on a busy highway, an act that few of us think twice about. Much of our horror at news reports of an airplane crash comes from the shattering of this world view by the sudden recognition that the world isn’t as safe a place as we once thought.
The space program has never been as safe as we’ve thought. If you were to express the accident rate, you’d have to do it "per hundred flights". That’s a far cry from the "per many thousand flights" you’d use for modern air travel and the more comfortable still—though wrong—perception of "per zillion trips" of car travel. We’re good at fooling ourselves and choosing the everyday reality that conforms best with our expectations, or that most soothes our fears. What becomes routine loses the thrill of the dangerous, and that’s certainly been the case with space travel in recent years. Television science fiction exacerbates the problem by portraying spacecraft and space travel as no more dangerous or exciting than getting in the family car to pick up some groceries—ironic given that we so cheerfully ignore the dangers of driving.
As scientific communicators, we face interesting challenges in the wake of the Columbia crash. First, we owe it to the memories of those who died on Columbia and to their families to help the public understand how difficult the astronaut’s job is, and how dangerous. Second, we must help the public understand something of the complexity of this and other dangerous but important branches of science; accidents such as the loss of the Challenger are soon forgotten, as witnessed by the shock over Columbia’s loss. And last but not least, for those of us who love the space program, we owe it to ourselves to help keep that program going by communicating some of our excitement at future prospects for space travel and by remaining undaunted by recent events. Not an easy task, but one well worth undertaking.
Kirk St. Amant, Institute of Technical and Scientific Communication, James Madison University (stamankr@jmu.edu)
With almost one and a half billion speakers on the planet, English has become a key language of international discourse. In scientific communication, English appears to have gained particular prominence. It is increasingly becoming the language of choice for scientific conferences such as the 10th European Symposium on Polymer Spectroscopy and the 12th Colloquium on High Resolution Molecular Spectroscopy. (In both cases, the entire conference was conducted in English even though both conferences were held in countries where English was not the official language and many of the attendees were not native English speakers.) A similar trend seems to be taking place in international scientific publications. The international edition of Angewandte Chemie, for example, prints all of its articles in English even though the journal is not published in an English-speaking nation. This widespread use of English in scientific communication, however, does not mean that cross-cultural interactions will now be easier. Rather, the new prominence of English brings with it a new set of international communication challenges.
The problem related to international English usage has to do with fluency and proficiency. That is, the fact that an international counterpart "speaks" English does not necessarily mean that he or she speaks English well. It also does not mean that a non-native speaker will understand all of the subtle nuances and intricate uses of the language. Rather, certain geopolitical and economic factors have greatly affected the nature of English language instruction in other nations. Some of the more common problematic factors include limited access to native English speakers, limited access to good teaching materials, and limited access to effective and competent instructors. Even for those persons who have studied English for a number of years under an effective educational system, certain linguistic nuances could contribute to crosscultural confusion. Further complicating this situation is the fact that there are various dialects of English used around the world. While these dialects are often quite similar, there are still enough areas of difference—areas such as idioms or different terms used to name the same item—that certain kinds of communication problems could occur. For example, American mechanics use "wrenches" to change a car’s "battery", but their British counterparts often use "spanners" to change "accumulators".
The international diffusion of online communication technologies also complicates the use of English as a language of international exchange. Online media remove many of the non-verbal cues, such as accents, that individuals often use to determine what dialect of English an individual speaks or how well an individual speaks English. Further, persons tend to be more tolerant of grammar and spelling errors in online messages. In the case of non-native English speakers, mistakes related to limited language proficiency might be considered a factor of the medium of the exchange. As a result, the limits of an international colleague’s English proficiency might go unnoticed until a language-related mistake happens.
Certain strategies can help science writers create more "user-friendly" English-language materials for international clients and coworkers. While this listing is not comprehensive, it attempts to address some of the more common problem areas related to international English usage.
Avoid idiomatic expressions. Idiomatic expressions are word combinations or phrases that have a specific cultural meaning that differs from the literal meaning of the word combination. For example, the idiomatic expression "it is raining cats and dogs" does not literally mean that cats and dogs are falling from the sky like raindrops. Because the meaning is based on a particular cultural association, English as a Foreign Language (EFL) speakers often have no way to know that such expressions convey non-literal meaning unless a particular source has made them aware of that non-literal meaning.
Avoid abbreviations. Abbreviations are like idioms, for readers must rely on a particular cultural background to understand what they mean. Thus, when using abbreviations, spell out the actual term the first time the abbreviation is used and then use some special indicator to demonstrate how this abbreviation relates to the original term or expression. For example, "This passage examines the role of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP)."
Avoid using complex verbs or long noun strings. If more than one verb is used in a sentence, EFL speakers with a limited knowledge of English might have problems determining what the actual action of that sentence is. For example, in the construction "do tell", is the action of the sentence "do" or "tell"? The more verbs used in creating a verb construction (e.g., "could have done"), the more difficult it becomes for new EFL speakers to discern what the action of the sentence is. A similar process could occur with long noun strings that make it difficult for the new EFL speaker to identify the actual subject of a sentence. Consider, for example, the difficulty of identifying the subject of the sentence, "A light particle flux time series is the subject of this paper."
Know the dialect of English spoken by the target culture. While the major dialects of English are quite similar, there are areas in which they differ, and these differences could result in comprehension problems. Speakers could use different terms for the same object or concept; as noted earlier, American mechanics use "wrenches" while their British counterparts use "spanners". Similarly, speakers of different dialects could associate different meanings with the same term; in many dialects of English, the word "bold" means "courageous", yet in Irish English, the word "bold" is often used to mean "naughty". Various dialects of English can also have different idiomatic expressions not recognized by speakers of other dialects, such as the South African "where he’ll do it", which actually means "he certainly won’t do it". Also, different dialects could have different spellings for the same word, such as "color" vs. "colour". For this reason, science writers should identify the dialect of English spoken by their audience and either familiarize themselves with potentially troublesome expressions or have a native speaker of that dialect of English review documents prior to publishing or posting them.
The spread of English as an international language of scientific communication can make it easier to exchange ideas. Making such exchanges truly effective, however, requires individuals to realize how linguistic limitations can affect comprehension and perception. By following a few, simple steps, scientific communicators can increase the chances that their messages are correctly understood by nonnative English speakers who have various levels of English-language proficiency.
By Geoff Hart (geoff-h@mtl.feric.ca)
As always, we scientific communicators will be present at the annual conference. Here’s some preliminary information on when and where to help you plan your schedule:
Sunday afternoon (May 18) from 4:30 to 5:30: The SIG business meeting is tentatively scheduled for this time, but check your conference program for final details. Come talk to me about issues for the SIG, including your thoughts on the potential merger with the ES&H SIG.
Monday (May 19) at 11: The medical report as a tool for teaching technical writing; Single-sourcing benefits to the life sciences; Scientific writing vs. scientific communication
Monday (May 19) at 2: Certifications and credentials for scientific editors; Communicating science to young audiences
Tuesday (May 20) at 11: The environmental impact of what we do; Assessing the use of animation in public science presentations
Tuesday (May 20) at noon: Come join us at the SIG networking luncheon. I’ve requested that the organizers reserve a couple of tables, but it would help persuade them if you can RSVP (geoff-h@mtl.feric.ca) so I can confirm how many of us to expect.
Tuesday (May 20) at 2: Managing the technical editing process
Wednesday (May 21) at 10:30: Using GIS as a Web communication tool
Of course, this list isn’t comprehensive, and much of the value in attending the conference lies in applying solutions from other disciplines to our own unique challenges. Have a close look at the conference program, but with an open mind, and see if you can’t broaden this list!
By Daniel Voss (daniel.w.voss@lmco.com)
Just a reminder as the STC membership renewal process creeps up on its February 28 deadline… the Society’s newest special interest group, the Special Needs SIG (SNSIG), is still looking for new members to support them in their twin mission to assist technical communicators with disabilities in the practice of our profession and to provide all technical communicators with information that will help them make our communication products more accessible to users with disabilities. A detailed mission statement is available at the Web site.
The SNSIG has already made significant progress: a comprehensive Web site (www.stcsig.org/sn/index.shtml); an online newsletter (first edition is posted at www.stcsig.org/sn/newsletter.shtml); and extensive support provided to the 49th STC Conference, including the publication of Guidelines for Persons with Special Needs and an Addendum thereto, a successful progression, and several articles in the Proceedings (conference materials available at www.stc-orlando.org/prodev/49notes/SNC.asp).
But there is much yet to do, and to accomplish it, the SNSIG needs more people. It is looking both for active members, to join the SNSIG’s initiatives; and patrons, whose affiliation will help the SNSIG secure the budget it needs to fulfill its objectives. If you wish to support the Special Needs SIG, you have two options:
In either case, in order to be added to the SNSIG’s newsletter and listserv without delay, please contact us (daniel.w.voss@lmco.com or jvinegar@myranch.com).
Janette Busch (Buschj@lincoln.ac.nz)
For four days recently I had the pleasure of saying science and writing in the same sentence and not once did I see people’s eyes glaze over! Australia’s National Science Writer’s Festival, held in Brisbane from October 3rd through 6th, 2002, was launched on with a spectacular science-art exhibition called INCEPTA 2002.
Each day began with a plenary panel discussion on topics such as the different faces of a scientific communicator and the need for scientific communication in developing countries. Then there were a large number of half-day and full-day workshops on topics ranging from editing for non-editors to basic theater skills, crisis communication, "poetry in a Petri dish" and why rationalists should wear sombreros, science for TV, freelancing, and formal science writing.
On one evening there was a presentation of the very popular "Science in the Pub" programme on the science of love and lust; on another, there was a lively festival dinner at which I won a subscription to New Scientist just by attending a particular workshop. The sponsors were very generous with their gifts,and many of us went home with unexpected treasures.
Was it worthwhile? Yes, very much so. I learned a lot and met many friendly people who were only too ready to pass on their knowledge and skills to their colleagues.
For details on past and future festivals, see the Australian Science Communicators Web site (www.asc.asn.au/index.html).
by Geoff Hart (geoff-h@mtl.feric.ca)
I haven’t seen a formal mission and vision statement for the Science SIG, and though I’m always a bit skeptical about the value of such things for large organizations because of the difficulty of implementing them across the organization, there are important benefits for smaller groups such as the Scientific Communication SIG. Among other things, they serve as a good statement on the kinds of issues I’d like to see discussed in our newsletter.
That being the case, here’s a brief summary of what I see as the primary emphases for the newsletter and our SIG:
communication of scientific information to specialist audiences (scientists), decisionmakers (government, managers, and others), and the public
discussion of the nature of scientific communication, its unique challenges, and solutions to those challenges
understanding the importance of science to society, and how to communicate that importance to various audiences in different contexts
tips and tricks for typical communications challenges that arise in the sciences
things we can teach the more typical STC communicator (someone who most likely documents computer or software applications) based on what we’ve learned from standard practices in the sciences
Agree or disagree? Want to write an article on any of these topics? Drop me a line (geoff-h@mtl.feric.ca), and let’s talk!
"Science has a language of its own which sometimes puzzles laymen. The word obvious is a case in point. A professor of physics, deriving some profound point of theory for the class, scribbled an equation on the board and said, ‘From this, it is obvious that we can proceed to write the following relationship...’ and he scribbled a second and equally long equation on the board. Then he paused. He stared hard at the two equations and said, ‘Wait a minute, I may be wrong...’ He sat down and began to write at his desk furiously, crossing out and rewriting for five minutes while the class sat in absolute silence waiting for the verdict. Finally, the professor rose with an air of satisfaction and said, ‘Yes, I was right in the first place. It *IS* obvious that the second equation follows from the first’."—Anonymous
"Theoretical scientists, inching away from the safe and the known, skirting the point of no return, confront nature with a free invention of the intellect. They strip the discovery down and wire it into place in the form of mathematical models or other abstractions that defne the perceived relation exactly. The now-naked idea is scrutinized with as much coldness and outward lack of pity as the naturally warm human heart can muster. They try to put it to use, devising experiments or field observations to test its claims. By the rules of scientific procedure it is then either discarded or temporarily sustained. Either way, the central theory encompassing it grows. If the abstractions survive they generate new knowledge from which further exploratory trips of the mind can be planned. Through the repeated alternation between flights of the imagination and the accretion of hard data, a mutual agreement on the workings of the world is written, in the form of natural law."—Edward O. Wilson, The drive to discovery
"The effort to understand the universe is one of the very frew things that lifts human life a little above the level of farce and gives it some of the grace of tragedy."—Steven Weinberg
"Arriving at practical and ethical decisions about controlling technology has become difficult, especially for laymen, who often find themselves looking on, bewildered, while opposing scientists hurl incomprehensible jargon at one another. But in most of these controversies it is wrong to confine the debate to narrow technical subjects; the right context is usually much broader and far more accessible to the public. Widening the scope of inquiry lets us see truths that cannot be derived from scientific analysis alone. As the physicist and Nobel laureate Philip Anderson wrote in 1972, the more we learn ‘about the nature of the fundamental laws, the less relevance they seem to have to the very real problems of the rest of science, much less to those of society’."—David Ehrenfeld, Unethical contexts for ethical questions
The Exchange is published on behalf of the Scientific Communication special interest group of the Society for Technical Communication. Material in the Exchange can be reprinted without permission if credit is given to the author and a copy of the reprint is sent to the editor. Please send comments, letters, and articles to the editor.
Editor, publisher, and SIG manager:
Geoff Hart, c/o FERIC, 580 boul. St-Jean, Pointe-Claire, Québec, H9R 3J9 Canada (geoff-h@mtl.feric.ca)
Webmaster:
Alane Alchorn (alchorn1@llnl.gov)
© 2003, Society for Technical Communication (901 North Stuart St., Suite 904, Arlington, Virginia 22203-1822 U.S.A., 703-522-4114, 703-522-2075 fax, www.stc.org)