1. Report this comment

    Radoslav Bozov said:

    Obviously both public and scientist can get out of complexity network only and only when strings of words are replaced by a definite imaginary parameter with ‘values’ that may or may not be important to general public. In order to do so, we not only must unify languages of best math theories and physical data interpretation on chemical symbolic but also emerge into conceptual frame of change that breaks the broken symmetry of time, and nevertheless intend on accomplishing a very difficult task of representing one reality. That frame should self improves over time without referring to backwards theories, rules, and principles that certainly complicate or deviate public’s perception of reality via proper education of life purpose and meaning. Particles are not particles, strings are not strings, waves are not waves. There is only interference of particles/strings/waves. And we should reverse ‘time’ reflected of what we observe into states that equal X sets of particles/strings/waves interference. And anyone in the public has pretty good imagination of what looks like a particle, a string or a wave depending on magnification of observable reality.

  2. Report this comment

    Matt Shipman said:

    A quick note to all readers: I do not claim to have this all figured out. Hopefully it will encourage some constructive discussion about ways we can support and improve science communication. Feedback, new ideas, etc. are encouraged. What do you think?

  3. Report this comment

    Mike Spear said:

    Everything here makes sense and it has made sense for a long time – well before social media came into play.
    As we rush to new online tools, self publishing platforms, and quick and easy posting to the ‘net, we seem to have a gap in our collective memory, or maybe it is the unknowing and the inexperienced who simply never had the memory to begin with.
    As a radio producer working on everything from general assignment to Olympic coverage to arts and music I always kept many of the ideas you have here in the back of my mind. Who was my audience for the piece? Am I simply re-stating what I just saw or heard or have I added some value? Have I written something that was easy to understand.
    So much of your post was familiar that I dug out a old CBC ( Canadian Broadcasting Corporation ) Style Guide written before we were caught in the digital explosion. There are headlines about the importance of tone, a responsibility to be intelligible, what’s best for the listener, headline language, and context. Pretty much everything in your post is in the Guide somewhere.
    As the CBC moved towards more digital and online communication I worked on the Style Guide and the new Journalistic Policy Manual to reflect the latest technology. It was no surprise that not much really had to change – just how the information was framed to reflect the new media landscape.
    Science communicators or scientists don’t need to re-invent commuications. They do need to learn the basics and realise they haven’t entered a brave new world. They have simply found themselves needing to take on a communications role that many others have already done before and done quite successfully..
    You may not have it all figured out Matt but then do we ever get it all figured out completely? You have however taken a measure of common sense communications, tossed in some new technology, and mixed it all together to come up with something entirely workable and accessible and in your role as a science communicator have the means to share you ideas.
    If only more in the science community would act on it.

  4. Report this comment

    Matt Shipman said:

    Thanks Mike. I confess that my approach to science communication is shaped very much by the lessons I learned in the newsroom. My role has changed (I’m certainly not a reporter any more), and the tools have changed (no more hot-glue machine to attach images to the hard copy), but — as you say — the ultimate goal remains the same. Communicate information clearly and effectively — and explain why people should care. Or else they’ll stop reading/listening/watching.

Comments are closed.