Let\u2019s apply backward design to the March for Science, which recently added their principles and goals<\/a> to their website<\/a>. Is marching the best way to achieve their objectives?<\/p>\n It\u2019s worth noting that the details of these goals seem to be frequently updated – even March organizers disagree<\/a> on what March priorities should be.<\/p>\n Scientists have a branding problem: they are seen as \u201ccold\u201d and untrustworthy<\/a>. But a march is not the best way to humanize science. In this case, scientists (especially in the realm of alternative facts, when any public appearance is vulnerable to spin) could be seen as partisan and angry<\/a> at the very least. This is not likely to improve<\/a> the image of scientists for anyone who currently thinks of them in a less-than-positive light.<\/p>\n Marchers want to \u201cspeak up for,\u201d \u201cprotect,\u201d and \u201csupport\u201d scientists who are \u201csilenced,\u201d \u201cthreatened,\u201d and \u201ccan no longer serve their institutions.\u201d I can\u2019t see a way to meet this goal without supporting individual scientists on a case-by-case basis, but the March is designed to channel thousands of voices into a single event. The March can only amplify generic messages about and to scientists in distress.<\/p>\n This is a tough sell. Science has its own troubled past<\/a> of exclusion<\/a>\u00a0(and the March does as well<\/a>). White men hold the largest number of jobs in the sciences by far. This is by all means something that we need to address. But taking a stand against exclusion in the sciences seems like a message best sent to fellow, future, and potential scientists rather than lawmakers. I don\u2019t want the government to have any more power over science hiring decisions than it already does<\/a>.<\/p>\n A great goal, and one partially achieved by including the public in the event. But to truly engage communities and look to the public for inspiration, scientists have to listen, not just talk. A march is not an event that says \u201cI\u2019m listening.\u201d<\/p>\n For backward design to work, goals have to be specific and measurable. This goal is neither. It says that march participants will be \u201cmore active in\u2026 democratic life\u201d and are sending a message that \u201cthe scientific community is making our democracy stronger.\u201d Stronger in what way? What is a \u2018democratic life\u2019? It\u2019s hard for me to see how marching furthers these vague messages.<\/p>\n For context, the Women\u2019s March on Washington aimed to send a message through numbers and to connect people with each other to establish a like-minded community (according to their website<\/a>). Both are goals that a march can directly address.<\/p>\n The March for Science is based on laudable principles, but I don\u2019t think that marching is the best way to accomplish their stated objectives. Here are a few alternative ideas for how people can work to achieve these aims.<\/p>\n Science supporters should engage people on a personal level rather than only \u2018as a scientist.\u2019 Marchers would leave a very different impression on non-scientists if the event were a giant meet-and-greet, for example. Online, they could follow the example of many scientists in my social media feed who don\u2019t restrict themselves to posting about only the professional parts of their lives. Instead, they talk smack over basketball games and were very excited to contribute to the #doesitfart database<\/a>. And scientists are already humanized in\u00a0#ActualLivingScientist<\/a>, More Than Scientists<\/a>, Biotweeps<\/a>, and @realscientists<\/a>.<\/p>\n Rather than marching against government-issued gag orders (which, to be clear, definitely don\u2019t have a place in science<\/a>), participants could instead join a community that provides resources to scientists in need. Pre-existing scientific communities are generally run by specific societies (such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science<\/a>) or perhaps such a community could be a product of the enthusiasm behind the March. Such a community could, for example, anonymously speak<\/a> on behalf of scientists whose work is being suppressed or take in scientists<\/a> negatively affected by legislation.<\/p>\n Encouraging more and diverse people to be involved in science sounds easy but is really hard<\/a> to do effectively on a broad scale. Suggestions for how to broaden participation range from confronting our implicit biases<\/a> to changing society\u2019s perceptions of scientists<\/a> to advocating for a more welcoming working environment<\/a>. This can seem overwhelming, but learning about what works<\/a> and collaborating<\/a> with other people<\/a> can help.<\/p>\n This is another thing that many people are already doing. Many scientists<\/a> write about their work for the public<\/a>, regularly engage<\/a> people online<\/a>, and even partner<\/a> with non-scientists<\/a> to conduct research<\/a>. Listening<\/a> must be part of the equation to succeed in creating long-lasting partnerships.<\/p>\n I\u2019d change this to \u2018make science a part of democracy.\u2019 Emily Ellsworth, a former congressional staffer, has sound advice<\/a> on how to best make sure your representatives hear you, including visiting them in person to talk about science (or see this analysis<\/a> of what gets legislators\u2019 attention). There are also many scientists who have recently decided to run for office<\/a>. 314 Action<\/a> can help with that.<\/p>\n If the community being forged by the March is something you want to participate in, then sign up but don\u2019t march. Or if marching for science helps you fulfill your objectives, then please don\u2019t let me stop you.<\/p>\n But if you haven\u2019t yet, apply backward design to your goals. How can you best reach people and influence their relationship with science? If the answer isn\u2019t marching, then do something else. I know I will be. <\/p>\n Virginia Schutte<\/a> received an ecology PhD in 2014 and is now a science communicator. She works with digital media to make science useful and fun for everyone. Read her other contributions to the Naturejobs blog <\/em>here<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Suggested posts<\/strong><\/p>\n Hope in the Dark and the March for Science<\/a><\/p>\n Join the March for Science in London (and other UK cities)<\/a><\/p>\n Development and debate about the March for Science<\/a><\/p>\n \n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" When I was in graduate school, I learned to create classes using backward design. Backward design encourages setting goals and then planning a course of action to meet those goals. This strategy can be applied to almost anything in life. \u201cWhat do I want for dinner?,\u201d for example, can transform into \u201cI need dinner to be quick\u201d or \u201clet\u2019s get rid of what\u2019s about to go bad in the fridge.\u201d … Read more<\/a> Continue reading ![\"crowd-1294991_1280\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.nature.com\/naturejobs\/files\/2017\/03\/crowd-1294991_1280.png\" "\\"crowd-1294991_1280\\"")
<\/a><\/p>\nGoal 1: Humanize science<\/h2>\n
Goal 2: Support scientists<\/h2>\n
Goal 3: Advocate for open, inclusive, and accessible science<\/h2>\n
Goal 4: Partner with the public<\/h2>\n
Goal 5: Affirm science as a democratic value<\/h2>\n
Humanize science<\/h2>\n
Support scientists<\/h2>\n
Make science inclusive<\/h2>\n
Partner with the public<\/h2>\n
Affirm science as a democratic value<\/h2>\n
![\"DSC_0889-small-square\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.nature.com\/naturejobs\/files\/2016\/08\/DSC_0889-small-square.jpg\" "\\"DSC_0889-small-square\\"")
<\/a><\/p>\n