Talking Incentives
- Chad Ozel is a professor of Physics at Union College and has a blog called "Uncertain Principles." His new book, How to Teach Physics to Your Dog, will be in stores in December, 2009.
I was asked to write a guest-blog post about "increased incentives for scientists to develop their communications skills." I'm happy to oblige, but in typical ornery-blogger fashion, the first thing I want to do is take issue with the question's phrasing. While it's commonly believed that scientists lack communication skills, that's very far from the truth.It is almost impossible to be a successful scientist without also being a good communicator. Communicating results to other scientists, through conference talks and journal articles, is critical for scientific success. Additionally, most research funding is obtained through applications to granting agencies like the NSF or the NIH, and successful proposal writing is all about communication.
So, it's simply not true that scientists lack communication skills in any absolute sense. Successful scientists, by and large, have excellent communication skills. The problem is that those skills have been developed for communication to a very specific audience: other scientists in the same field. The communication strategies that are most effective for scientists talking to other scientists are often not effective when communicating to the general public.
(This problem is not restricted to scientists. The same basic problem afflicts every profession with specialized jargon: academics in the humanities and social sciences, doctors, lawyers, politicians, movie and television producers--even the manager-speak mocked by Dilbert and other comics is an example of communication that works well for a specific audience and fails with people outside that audience. Pretty much any profession whose characteristic style can be mocked in a Saturday Night Live sketch suffers from the same problem as science, to a greater or lesser degree.)
The question, then, is not how to get scientists to develop communications skills, it's how to get them to apply the skills they already have to the problem of talking to the general public. Any successful scientist has the skills needed to communicate science to an audience of other scientists. Those same skills can be used to communicate science to the general public; they just need to be employed in slightly different ways.
Getting scientists to make these changes, though, is a hard problem: the current situation has come about because all of the professional incentives in science reward technical communication to an audience of other scientists, with communication to the general public ignored at best and, in many cases, actively discouraged. This problem is not insurmountable, though: scientists are fundamentally pragmatic people, and if convinced of the necessity of communicating to the general public, they will find a way to get it done.
It's also not necessary to turn every single scientist into a public communications expert--just a few capable scientists engaged in public communication would be enough. All we really need to do is support and encourage those scientists who enjoy speaking to a wider audience but are discouraged from doing so.
So, what incentives do we need to provide? The ultimate prize in academic science is a tenured faculty position, so the best way to encourage public communication by scientists would be to make public communication count toward tenure. Again, this doesn't need to be an extra requirement imposed on all scientists--that only encourages a "checklist" mentality, with each requirement met with the minimum possible effort. What we need is a recognition of public communication as a worthy and important part of the scientific enterprise, one of many different professional activities that are appropriate for a scientist. Too often, public outreach efforts are regarded as a distraction from the "real" business of a scientist. To encourage public communication, we need to reward these efforts as valuable professional service.
These efforts can perhaps be linked with calls for increased emphasis on education. Parents and politicians are beginning to demand better educational results from academia, which indirectly requires an improvement in public communications skills on the part of academic scientists. Effectively teaching introductory classes is not too different from communicating science to the public. Improved teaching will almost certainly lead to better public communication, and vice versa.
Unfortunately, there is no easy, centralized way to change the incentives of academia. The academic system is an emergent property of the activities of vast numbers of academic scientists, and changing the system requires changing their minds. The system can be changed, though, through the local efforts of individual scientists. There is no "Science" in the abstract--we are Science, and if enough individual scientists push for change, we can shift the incentives of the academic system toward where they need to be.
There are a few top-down initiatives that are often suggested from outside academia, but these need to be approached with care. For example, the "broader impact" sections of NSF and NIH grants could be used to force government funded scientists to communicate their results to a wider audience. This will have only limited success without a general change in attitudes, though--the existing requirements are often met with boilerplate statements. Changing behavior through this method would require a willingness to deny funding to otherwise worthy projects for failing to put enough emphasis on communication, a move sure to provoke complaints.
A bolder approach might be something along the lines suggested by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum in their recent book Unscientific America. They suggest creating new kinds of scientific jobs that focus on communicating science to broader audiences. Such positions would encourage public communication by creating new jobs outside the traditional academic track for scientists who have the interest and skills to communicate science to the general public.The main obstacle to this proposal is respect; for this approach to succeed, these jobs cannot be seen as consolation prizes for those who "wash out" of the academic career track. A possible solution would be to use the prestige of national professional organizations, such as the American Physical Society, American Chemical Society, and others. In many ways, The Science & Entertainment Exchange can be seen as a model of this approach: using the prestige of the National Academy of Sciences to support communication activities that some scientists might regard as frivolous.
Ironically, the current economic crisis may be a boon to such efforts. With the country mired in recession, the already tight academic job market has only gotten worse. When economic conditions make even outstanding candidates struggle to get tenure-track positions, the stress may finally break the myth of academic science as a pure meritocracy and force scientists to recognize a broader range of career tracks as valid and fulfilling paths.
As I said above, convincing scientists that they need to communicate more effectively with the general public is a difficult problem that requires changing the minds and attitudes of many people. Solving it will take a great deal of time and effort, but it starts close to home. Those of us who are in academic science need to do more to encourage our students to consider a wider range of careers than the traditional focus on academia. We also need to support and encourage those students and colleagues who have an interest in bringing science to a wider audience. Doing these things on a local level is the essential first step toward changing the system of academic science for the better.
All Posts RSS Feed
9 Comments:
Here's the thing. While I greatly appreciate your effort here and the organization of your points, I think the central thesis, which I would describe as 'Better Scientific Communication requires Better Incentives', is built upon a faulty postulate.
Science, like Medicine, is not Baseball or Pop Music. It is an exploration of knowledge and discovery, with tangible benefits for mankind. It is only a borderline 'Market Based' endeavor, and the idea that Scientists have to be, essentially, better compensated, for improving their contributions is misguided.
Science is its OWN reward, working scientists eat regularly and, in essence, that should be all they need. The ego-driven, step-over-anyone to publish, plagiarize, destroy rival Scientist is counter-productive to the discovery underlying the WORK (remember the work?) and, rather than finding more ways to make Scientists feel like Rock Stars, isn't the more appropriate measure to place more Ethics into the equation and encourage a selfless devotion to Science and greatly reduced emphasis on the Scientists own financial and publicity benefits.
We are moving into the 2nd Century of Theoretical Physics, revolutions in Genetics, Robotics, Cybernetics, NanoTechnology, Propulsion...onandonandon. Rewards will develop for some, but they cannot be allowed to be the driving force. Science is a calling beyond economics and sociology and the place to bring that home is in the Education of Scientists. Let the egotists pick up a Microphone or a Bat and belt one out, let Science move away from the 'credit' and 'reward' and more towards a selfless contribution to humanity.
Matthew@VagabondGuru.com
Hi Matthew,
Debate over what the characteristics and moral virtues driving scientists and scientific progress are and what they ought to be has been a major theme in academic scholarship within the social studies of science for well over a century. A great summary of this was recently synthesized by Harvard historian of science, Steven Shapin in his book The Scientific Life: A Moral History of a Late Modern Vocation. I think you might enjoy it.
While many scientists may view their work as a selfless contribution to humanity, scientific progress and social progress do not always correlate with one another. With a limited amount of resources, policymakers must make decisions not just about "how much" to invest in science, but also about "which" scientific knowledge should be pursued. In a democratic society, those decisions ought to be based upon informed citizen input, something that is currently lacking in many decisions about research policy. Hence, the goal should be to enhance linkages between science and society such that a positive correlation between scientific progress and social progress is maximized. Improving science communication is just the first step in that process, but given the tidal wave of emerging technologies you mentioned, it's all the more important we give this issue our utmost attention over the coming years.
John
Science, like Medicine, is not Baseball or Pop Music. It is an exploration of knowledge and discovery, with tangible benefits for mankind. It is only a borderline 'Market Based' endeavor, and the idea that Scientists have to be, essentially, better compensated, for improving their contributions is misguided.
It's interesting that you choose baseball as one of your examples, because the line of reasoning you're using is something I usually encounter in the context of professional sports. The typical form is something like "Where does Alex Rodriguez get off holding out for more money? He's getting paid millions for playing a game-- he should be grateful to be getting anything at all!"
I think this is a foolish line of argument when applied to baseball, and it's every bit as foolish when applied to science. Scientists are ordinary human beings, not saints or ascetics, and they deserve to be compensated appropriately for their efforts. The transcendent joy of being privileged to do science for a living doesn't put food on the table or pay medical bills.
Any systematic approach to scientific research that relies on scientists being saints or ascetics is doomed to failure, in the same way that a baseball team constructed around the theory that the players should be grateful to be paid anything at all is doomed to languish at the bottom of the standings.
I frequently see statements like this: "Science is its OWN reward, working scientists eat regularly and, in essence, that should be all they need." Unfortunately, this means that science will continue to be performed only by those who are willing to accept the limitations this imposes: generally white males of some means, if not independently wealthy ones. Why does science have this mystique, where other fields do not? We don't require doctors to say "Oh, I only want to do this to help people, even if I only make $20K a year, it's all worth it." We assume that some subset of doctors will be influenced by the pay and/or prestige that accrue. Yes, it's a good idea to enjoy one's job, but it doesn't have to be the only source of satisfaction in your life.
I know this is getting away from the original topic, but I strongly felt the need to oppose the "scientists must be selfless slaves for the greater good" narrative. Improved communication will help, I think, in that it demystifies science and makes people realize they too can be scientists in their daily lives. There are all sorts of ways to apply science, from comparative effectiveness testing (does Cleaner A work better than Cleaner B) to participating in backyard bird surveys to fixing your own leaky faucets. The more ways we get this message out there, the better.
Disclaimer: I obviously have a great deal of self-interest in the following (as the link would suggest).
That said: I'm under the impression that it's not uncommon for someone in a professor's lab who happens to be good at writing to be tasked with most of the writing and editing work on scientific publications. Why wouldn't there also be a similar demand for someone with talents in "Public Relations" and "Lobbying"* in addition to the scientific work going on in the professor's lab (or, for that matter, in private-sector labs)?
I'm sure there are at least a few of us out here that like the idea of doing that kind of work so long as we also get to participate in the science itself - that is, not working as a "science journalist" who is "embedded" in a lab but as an actual participant in public or private-sector science. I'm reasonably convinced that such a combination of skills would be very valuable, to the extent that I've started a little side-project to try to develop them myself.
However, I'd love to have some reassurance from people in a position to actually hire someone for that kind of skill set that it's not just me that thinks so. I'm not sure how many public or private organizations who recognize the value of public outreach also recognize the value of looking for scientifically-trained people to do it rather than looking primarily for experience in PR and marketing.
* (Despite the low opinion a lot of people have of those professions, I don't actually mean for them to be demeaning here...)
That said: I'm under the impression that it's not uncommon for someone in a professor's lab who happens to be good at writing to be tasked with most of the writing and editing work on scientific publications.
I've never run across a lab where there was a designated writer of papers. In my experience, the initial draft of a paper is written by the student or postdoc who did most of the work on the project in question (and who needs a first-author credit), and subsequent editing is a collaborative process with the co-authors.
That doesn't mean that it doesn't happen somewhere, but it's not common in my field of physics, at least.
Why is it thought that scientists need to improve their communication skills to begin with? Surely it should not be to encourage more young people to become scientists; Chad's comments about the present job market for scientists shows that we are producing enough. If it's about correcting widespread scientific illiteracy and lack of critical-thinking skills, then why are we asking physicists what the solution is?
Chad writes that "Effectively teaching introductory classes is not too different from communicating science to the public" and I have to ask, "what is the evidence for that?" Even in an introductory class, you have a relatively elite group; most Americans don't go to college. Not all of those who do go to college need to pass an introductory science class and of those who manage to earn a passing grade in an introductory class, not all of them actually learned anything. My order of magnitude guess is that the sort of communication that goes on in effectively taught introductory classes is effective for perhaps 25% of the public.
There's an underlying assumption that the reasons for widespread scientific illiteracy and mistrust of science have to do primarily with lack of content. This should not be an assumption--any effort at solving whatever the original question was getting at needs to be designed in close collaboration with social scientists who have studied learning and belief, who understand how the target audience's mindset develops and what sort of messages are effective.
Chad writes that "Effectively teaching introductory classes is not too different from communicating science to the public" and I have to ask, "what is the evidence for that?" Even in an introductory class, you have a relatively elite group; most Americans don't go to college. Not all of those who do go to college need to pass an introductory science class and of those who manage to earn a passing grade in an introductory class, not all of them actually learned anything. My order of magnitude guess is that the sort of communication that goes on in effectively taught introductory classes is effective for perhaps 25% of the public.
That's probably about right. That's also about 22% more than you reach with more typical introductory classes. There's a wealth of literature on this in the Physics Education Research community (people like Eric Mazur, Priscilla Laws, etc.)-- traditional lecture format intro classes are really bad, but with improved techniques, you can actually do a decent job getting the concepts across.
And speaking anecdotally, if you do the work to make an effective intro-level presentation of a subject, you're most of the way to having an effective general-audience presentation. It's not completely trivial to remove the last few elements of math, but the conceptual presentation you need for an intro class is not all that much different from the conceptual presentation you need for a general audience.
Steve Lohr over at the New York Times has an interesting article about this topic of diversifying the educational training of scientists to meet the needs of today's industry.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/20/education/20INNOV.html
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home