Tag Archive: Science

The case for narrative: why scientists need to tell a better story

19 Jan 2012
Tags: , , , , ,
Share

A recent article in The Guardian newspaper outlined 9 ways in which scientists demonstrate  they don’t understand journalism. Judging from the number of re-tweets it received – 581 at my last count  – it struck a chord with many readers.

Scientists and journalists are often at loggerheads because their respective professions emphasise completely different skill sets. Scientists stress the importance of facts by amassing large amounts of evidence with which to support (or not) theories via painstaking experiment and replication. This is an anathema to the journalist who prefers the big picture, generalisations, snappy quotes, one or two facts, anecdotes and emotion.

As media trainers we  know that scientists care if their work is misunderstood by journalists (and the wider public) because we often come across talented people who claim all their problems would be solved if the public only understood ‘the facts’.   But the longevity of scare stories such as MMR and GM, combined with a massive drop in the number of European students choosing to study science, suggest that there is clearly something wrong with this approach in its current form.

We work with many different types of scientist  and the constant challenge is that ‘scientific fact’ is almost always communicated in a form that fails to connect with non-specialist audiences. Findings are often presented in chronological data sets which are often divorced from context or wider social impact.  Furthermore, results are often not clear cut, making them unpalatable to a hype-obsessed media and a scientifically illiterate public in possession of some contradictory views about what it means to accept ‘risk’ in their daily lives.

A group of African Americans with high blood pressure were able to control their condition better after hearing stories from fellow sufferers

Let’s be clear – of course facts are important for communication because they provide objective evidence and back up to any argument.  But there is a growing body of literature (think Chip and Dan Heath, Daniel Pink or Peter Guber) which suggests that storytelling is a powerful tool not only for making core messages memorable but also for persuading people to do things that scientific data alone can’t.  And by storytelling, I really do mean a narrative sequence of events with a clear beginning, middle and end.

A recent study monitored a group of African-Americans with high blood pressure who, as part of their treatment, listened to or watched stories of others with similar problems. After hearing how the characters in the stories were able to control their blood pressure through simple methods like being careful about their diet and taking exercise, they were able to control their illness as effectively as another group taking extra drugs for the condition.

Obviously this is just one case where a story may have been instrumental in changing the way patients responded to ‘treatment’ and changed their behaviour. But there are countless other ways – such as communicating the progress of trials or dispelling scares – where storytelling could be the scientist’s most powerful tool for persuading others of the realities behind an issue.

The world of science is full of incredible tales. But all too often they are buried because they are deemed ‘unscientific’.  Our prescription for better communication of science is first recognise that communicating with a general audience requires very different skills to writing an academic paper. Second, nurture and recognise the good communicators in your team or discipline (we find they are often persuaded to communicate less effectively by group pressure), and third, if its really important and you have the funds, hire people like us who can help you find and craft the stories that will make your data convincing.

Science is a human enterprise – and scientists could benefit hugely by remembering this when they need to communicate with the rest of us.

Laura Shields has been working with Robert Matthews, a science journalist, to develop media training workshops that help scientists of any persuasion to communicate powerfully and accurately, while also challenging opposition spin.

4 Comments

The need for good science and better communication

29 Jul 2011
Tags: , , , , , ,
Share

The reporting of science, from health scares to climate change, is fraught with difficulty for journalists and often provokes fury, frustration and despair from scientists.

The BBC, in response to some heavy criticism, commissioned a review, which is useful reading for journalists and for those who want their research or opinion reported.

The review’s lead author, Professor Steve Jones, is himself a geneticist at the University

Professor Steve Jones conducted a review into the BBC's science coverage

College of London and has written several popular books on science. Published last week it aims to provide an independent review of the impartiality and accuracy of the BBC’s science coverage.

It is a reminder of just how hard it is for journalists – particularly those working to editorial guidelines as stringent as the BBC’s -  to report science in a meaningful way that stimulates audience interest while remaining impartial, true to the facts and avoiding sensationalism.

One of the central criticisms, which was later picked up by Observer Science Editor Robin Mckie is that the BBC (and most journalists for that matter) is simultaneously obsessed with balance and controversy, a lethal pairing which has given birth to distorted reporting by granting marginal voices the same expert status as scientists. This has had the unfortunate effect of making the science seem more in question to viewers and readers than it actually is.

Professor Jones cites the case of a Today programme piece (which had also been praised for the number of items it devotes to science) on Genetically Modified potatoes (page 62), which contained an interview with a scientist as well as a balanced introduction from the reporter Tom Fielden. However, after the set up piece, the segment then cut to a live studio interview with a spokesperson from Friends of the Earth who is described as a ‘food campaigner’ (with no apparent scientific credentials), who:

‘was allowed to get away with a series of inaccurate statements which took up more time  than the researcher or Tom Feilden himself, neither of whom were present’.

The MMR vaccine scare was a watershed in science reporting

This is a complaint I often hear from clients. Be it GM crops, MMR, climate change, phthalates, animal testing, oil spills or any other issue where emotions are pitted against science, the cry goes up that the evidence is ignored and free rein is given to NGOs, extremists groups and other polemicists who are not basing their arguments on evidence but know how to shout louder and more articulately than the scientific community.

Professor Jones correctly identifies that if science is to be challenged, it must be on the basis of ‘equal voice’ i.e. scientist versus scientist, rather than scientist versus unqualified activist who happens to have a strong opinion and be good at expressing themselves.

It is an interesting concept, but will be hard to enforce. NGOs and activists get more airtime (and column inches) because they take the trouble to oraganise simple clear messages, often injected with levels of emotion and meaning that make it easy for journalists and ordinary people to understand.

By contrast, scientists are inclined to present the data without explaining the meaning,  hide behind technical jargon, consider that the evidence speaks for itself and, equally importantly, are often more reluctant to go to a studio at 5am in order to grab a share of the airwaves.

Time and again we come across scientists who have scientific skills but not communication skills.

This is not a clarion call for all scientists to start beating their chests and leap into a frenzy in the Newsnight studio. But it is a plea for them to realise that using the media as a tool for correcting public opinion requires some effort to meet journalists on turf they understand. And that means (amongst other things) being quotable, using good evidence with meaningful numbers and examples, which an audience/journalist can connect with easily and quickly. Such scientists are few and far between.

It is then no surprise that outlets such as the BBC rely on a handful of scientists (another Jones’ criticism) who know how to communicate an argument well and give good soundbites. These gifted people often find they are looked down on by their peers and accused of dumbing down.

Science needs to step up to this challenge, something already being recognised in some grant awards (its called outreach work). Society needs good science and good science needs communicators.

1 Comment