Can you recall a story you read recently and found memorable? What was it about it that you enjoyed? The author’s dexterity in painting a vivid image of scenes and events? The story’s vivacity? Your ability to relate with the characters?
The point of these questions was to reveal a crucial point: the memorability of a piece is in its ability to leave an indelible imprint on a reader’s mind. This aspiration for memorability is common to both the storyteller and the science communicator.
In science communication, our aim is to inform or educate an audience, or to argue an alternate viewpoint, supported by facts and data. Alternatively, it could be to create awareness and sensitize towards a specific course of action. Underlying these aims is an overarching goal: to leave an imprint on the reader’s mind, one that is noteworthy enough to impact or influence them in a positive direction.
As an early-career scientist who doubles as a creative writer, I have distilled my passion for communication and storytelling to strengthen my capacity for science communication. In this article, I will share three helpful pointers I have gleaned to refine the plot, clarify the language, and communicate the motivation of my science and research communication pieces.
Connect the dots
When crafting a new story, I invest time and effort to weave the plot together. Often, my aim is to adapt the plot to suit my chosen genre by deploying all the resources at my disposal–such as language, creativity, flair, and enthusiasm–to paint a vivid picture in the reader’s mind.
While components of scientific research, such as the hypothesis, objectives, and findings, are not animated characters that can “come alive”, effective communication demands a reassessment of your article to avoid an unintended disconnect. In storytelling terminology, this is referred to as “sticking to the plot”. Here are some questions I ask myself when drafting a scientific publication: what question did I set out to answer? (Research Question); what did I think was going to happen? (Hypothesis); what did I investigate and how? (Objectives & Methods); what did I find? (Results); and how do my findings circle back to the initial research question? (Discussion).
Stepping back to assess the “plot” this way makes it easier for me to communicate the complex scientific terms in a consistent and connected way that promotes comprehension.
Value clarity
The use of consistent scientific terms and a standardized reporting style of reporting come in handy for coherent science communication. However, the inclusion of a lot of scientific jargon can also lead to verbosity.
For example, the following parameters are routinely reported about cell culture: name of cell line, name of the manufacturer, seeding density, culture and passage conditions, and culture materials. Therefore, before the actual experimental procedures or results are described, a lot of detail has been provided at the preliminary level for the reader to sift through. There lies our dilemma: if we leave out too many important details, we risk sacrificing thoroughness. However, if we include too much detail, we risk losing the reader’s attention.
To navigate this challenge, the storyteller in me offers a cue: “add just enough fluff”; that is, seek to strike the balance between thoroughness and lucidness.
Communicate the why
Finally, it is important to clarify our “why”. Our science communication articles may have different aims, such as to spur renewed interest in science, correct misinformation, or support public education and awareness. While these aims are linked by a common desire to bridge a knowledge gap, it cannot be assumed that a reader would immediately discern this motivation.
To better communicate my “why”, I endeavour to ask myself the following questions: “What am I trying to say? Why does it matter? Is that motivation currently reflected in this draft?”By answering these questions, my approach to writing is re-centered to communicate the central motivation.
Much ado about memorability
As science communicators in today’s society, we are uniquely positioned to promote the favourable perception and acceptance of scientific efforts and advancements. Our initiatives and efforts may differ, but as this article has reiterated, we share a common aim to make a positive impact through our diverse science communication efforts. I am enthusiastic that these storytelling cues will come in handy as timely and innovative tools to leverage for the achievement of this shared goal.
Further reading
- Illingworth S. (2017). Delivering effective science communication: advice from a professional science communicator. Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology, 70, 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcdb.2017.04.002
A comprehensive review which provides vital insight on pertinent questions and factors to consider for effective science communication to diverse groups and communities.
- Collins, K., Shiffman, D., & Rock, J. (2016). How Are Scientists Using Social Media in the Workplace?. PLoS One, 11(10), e0162680. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162680
An investigation into the use of social media by scientists for science communication and public engagement.
- Weingart, P. & Guenther, L. (2016). Science communication and the issue of trust. Journal of Science Communication,15(05), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.15050301
A discussion about the broad definitions of science communication and the challenges tainted science communication poses to public trust.
Author
Ibukunoluwa Naiyeju is currently pursuing her Ph.D. in Biological & Biomedical Engineering at McGill University, Canada, where her research focuses on the development of in vitro models for the study of inflammation in atherosclerosis. She is also an Alumna of the ComSciCon Flagship Workshop, a notable empowerment workshop for graduate students interested in science communication. Outside the lab, she is a creative writer for Camwood Carats, a storytelling publication on Medium, and a nature photography enthusiast.
Editors
Ananya Sen is currently a science writer at the Carl R. Woese Institute for Genomic Biology. She completed her Ph.D. in Microbiology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 2021. She is an ardent reader and will happily discuss anything from Jane Austen to Gillian Flynn. Her travel goals include covering all the national parks in the U.S. with her sidekick Oscar, a Schnauzer/Pomeranian mix.
Sumbul Jawed Khan is the Assistant Editor-in-Chief at Club SciWri. She received her Ph. D. from the Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, where she studied the role of the microenvironment in cancer progression and tumor formation. During her post-doctoral research at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, she investigated the gene regulatory networks important for tissue regeneration. She is committed to science outreach activities and believes it is essential to inspire young people to apply scientific methods to tackle the challenges faced by humanity. As an editor, she aims to simplify, translate, and excite people about current advances in science.
The contents of Club SciWri are the copyright of Ph.D. Career Support Group (DBA STEMPeers) for STEM trainees, experts, and professionals. This work by Club SciWri is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
