Scientific Communication: When Non-experts Communicate to Experts and Vice Versa
In an age of impatient readers and jargon, scientific content writing may need to recalibrate its course.
“What is the human dimension of the research or the study or the concept that you’re trying to communicate?”
This quote from Erika Check Hayden, the director of the Science Communication Program at the University of California, Santa Cruz, perfectly summarizes the question that now often preempts scientific content writing. That’s because, one might argue, the era calls for renewed communication efforts, which must begin with fundamental communication enablers.
In this article’s context, and following Hayden’s advice, we may put scientific content writing under this proverbial microscope.
Subscribe for marketing insights via email
Why scientific content writing optimizations matter
First, let us establish the need for this investigation – and the pursuits that should likely follow.
To start with, for all of digital transformation’s benefits, the digital era has inadvertently changed the average reader as well. Obscenely higher information consumption rates may leave them less attentive, it seems. Attention spans shrink, social media feeds bloat and buzz ever more, and alternative information lies a click or tap away. Thus, a figuratively bloody battle for attention and credibility ensues, where flashy visuals meet jargon – and often miss the reader. Perhaps, in turn, trust declines, engagement falters and communication suffers.
The changed reader
For one, the reader has indeed changed. Google finds general audiences have become increasingly impatient with page load speeds, with mobile users particularly prone to this trend. In turn, scientific content writers sacrificing readability for “value” simply inhibits communication further, as impatient audiences won’t invest due time.
Experts in any given area are no less prone to this behaviour than non-scientifically-inclined audiences. It may feel logical to assume otherwise, but expertise in any given field is just that; expertise in one field. Thought leaders themselves consume information through identical channels and in near-identical ways – and mind jargon just as much.
Engagement
In turn, even from a strict content marketing perspective, engagement with scientific content simply requires more work. The basic premise of, and intended use for, content marketing should be to make your users interested in your message. Even if effective communication itself is not the primary goal, it is required. Yet, walking the thin line between value and readability to cater to two presumed audiences may simply sabotage both. Again, communication falters.
Trust
The final product of these circumstances becomes, unavoidably, distrust. Marketing specifically aside, Pew Research reports that these turbulent times have seen Americans trust science less. The Edelman Trust Barometer paints a similarly bleak picture, where trust in all institutions diminishes as well. Understandably, lacking communication can never remedy these issues; it can only exacerbate them. Thus, whether for marketing efficiency, science advocacy, or simply effective cross-discipline dialogue, scientific content writing cannot overlook these contexts.
Scientific content writing: when non-experts communicate to experts
So how may one optimize communication, especially between experts and non-experts? While far from expansive or absolute, the following may help pave a logical route.
Identifying the audience
This fundamental practice is what Ben Marcus concludes with in his article on the GCLife blog, but here we may begin with it. This optimization hinges on the balance we identified before, and he begins with:
“Writing to experts who are not in your field, especially in science writing, is a unique communication skill because it requires that you explain complex topics in a way your audience will understand without making them so simple that you insult their intelligence.”
Indeed, the primary challenge in scientific content writing lies in balancing simplicity with depth. This is the distinction Search Engine Optimization (SEO) introduces too, where search engines dictate both immediate readability and demonstrable depth to favor content. This, of course, offers no universal solutions; each individual audience requires its own approach and its own degree of both. Thus, identifying one’s audience in advance, to both gauge their jargon tolerance and cater to their sensibilities, is crucial.
Establishing the structure
Similarly, form must follow content – and vice versa. The structure and logical flow must compliment both the point being made and the reason why it is being made. For this step, one may begin with Hayden’s question from the introduction; where can the human dimension take hold? Scientifica suggests structure can best showcase passion and champion simplicity:
“A good structure to use is an inverted pyramid, starting with the conclusion (the most important message) and finishing with the background information that would normally be in the introduction of a piece of scientific writing.”
Of course, this solution too may not apply universally. It is here where audience insights can suggest which structure to best employ – as well as the hosting outlet.
Adapting to the outlet
On that subject, the publication outlet itself will often hold significant value for scientific content writing. In fact, it differs little from how pharmaceutical advertisements promote scientific products yet do so in brand-appropriate ways. Yes, this factor does somewhat steer into marketing territory again, but it is no less noteworthy.
The American Psychological Association quotes Lisa Damour, who beautifully summarizes this point:
“Sometimes where academics struggle is they’re trying to submit an embroidered coat to a place that sells parkas[.] There’s nothing wrong with the embroidered coat, but the outlet that sells parkas doesn’t work with that kind of content.”
This metaphor does hold immense value in that it identifies an important extratextual factor. Adapting to an outlet differs little from adapting to audiences; it actually comes first, even if with its own challenges.
The jargon pitfall
Still, the text itself presents the primary challenge in such communications. The APA’s above article echoes the other aforecited ones in one key point; in jargon lies a pitfall. In it, Michelle Nijhuis advises not thinking of this process as “dumbing down” one’s work:
“The people you’re speaking to aren’t dumb[; they] just are interested in different things than you’re interested in.”
Indeed, writers will often rely on jargon to establish credibility – or perceived credibility, at the very least. However, jargon can communicate few things better than well-crafted metaphors and suitable everyday synonyms, while also adding little. It does not simply alienate non-expert audiences, either; experts in one field seldom grasp the jargon of another.
Overcorrecting into oversimplification
That said, we must make a crucial distinction on discarding jargon. That is, jargon may not at all times be avoided; it can be used where appropriate, and is sometimes necessary.
National Geographic’s Ed Yong identified this overcorrection over a decade ago, and it still applies today:
“Writers should always remember that the more technical you get, the more restrictive you get, even if people are writing for a scientific audience. [Yet,] the opposite mistake to using wanton jargon is treating complicated terms like linguistic lepers, and introducing them nervously. […]General readers are more than capable of understanding complex concepts, if you explain them. Explain a word once, and you can often get away with using it again[.]”
For an example from this very article, consider the earlier mention of SEO. Having touched on marketing, the acronym bore mentioning and added some contextual value. The reason for it was briefly touched on, and now the acronym may be used again. Any audience can at best understand its fundamental relation to this subject, and at worst, recall the acronym and continue.
That is to say, avoiding jargon altogether may tip the scales too much in favour of simplicity over depth. However, the goal is not simplicity alone, but a balance between it and value.
Consistent application
Finally, one must ensure consistent application of any and all scientific content writing optimizations. If the above article’s age did not prove that no problems may be solved without consistency, we may cite another. “How experts communicate” was published in Nature Neuroscience in 2000, and its conclusion still rings true today:
“Because young scientists learn by imitating their elders, a culture of bad writing tends to be self-perpetuating. Perhaps the solution is for graduate programs to place more emphasis on formal instruction in scientific writing, but this will only happen if scientists appreciate the need for better communication and understand the steps that can be taken to achieve it.”
Indeed, the digital age and the changed reader it produced only exacerbated an existing problem. Namely, “a culture of bad writing” that one may only tackle with both diligence and consistency. Hopefully, through such introspections and adjustments, scientific content writers may do so in the years to come.
For more on strategic content marketing and writing in the pharmaceutical sectors, and how we can help you, visit our section on content.
