Communicating Research to the Non-Scientist

In her 1998 publication "Accommodating Science," UMD researcher Jeanne Fahnestock highlighted the importance of presenting STEM-related research to non-experts through means which they can understand, without abandoning the detailed truth of the information being presented.? Expanding upon the observations of famous thinkers such as Cicero and Albert Einstein, Fahnestock identifies several means in which authors will oversimplify their accounts of research in order to garner clicks and attention.

One way in which science writers will sensationalize research is by changing the genre of writing from the original work. According to Fahnestock, most scientific reports fall under the category of forensic oratory (the type of speech usually found in a court room) because papers are "largely concerned with establishing the validity of the observations they report (Fahnestock 333)." Science reporters, however, often use epideictic oratory instead, usually to make sure the scientific findings either feature either a) a deontological, wondrous account of a groundbreaking discovery, or b) a teleological, applicable account of the practical benefits of the discovery. Without one of these two appeals, an average reader may wonder why the research is significant at all.

Trying to highlight the exciting aspects of a research paper is not harmful on its own, but when attempts to do so end up misconstruing the facts, it becomes a problem. In her article, Fahnestock describes certain means by which authors will attempt to make research appear "more significant" to the reader. One of these strategies includes omitting words of uncertainty in order to make it more impactful. She references the work of Bruno Latour and Stephen Woolgar to emphasize how different types of statements convey different degrees of certainty, and how scientists tend to air on the side of caution and use statements which don't jump to conclusions. Many scientific authors, however, will use statements that seem to be absolute, in order to convey those deontological or teleological arguments (Fahnestock 342-343).

So this begs the question: how can we, as STEM professionals, ensure that our writing is capable of reaching a wider audience without oversimplifying our findings? After reading Fahnestock's article, I have a couple of ideas.

• Be conscious of the language you are using. Don't make statements that are broad or sweeping, or that jump to conclusions too quickly. Allow the research to speak to its own importance.
• Do not underestimate your audience. Expect that your readers will gauge the research's significance without it being explicitly handed to them.
• Use other methods of exploring the wonder and application of your work. Relate them to recognizable culture, or use analogies, to better engage readers, as opposed to omitting important scientific information.

Hopefully, the work of researchers such as Fahnestock will contribute to STEM access increasing among those of all experience levels.

Source: Fahnestock, Jeanne. “Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts”.?Written Communication, vol. 15, no. 3, July 1998, pp. 330-350.

Image: https://phys.org/news/2015-09-common-animal-species-rare.html