It's time the phrase "dumbing it down" was made extinct. In science communication and any other form of communication we are always told to think about our audience. It is one of the foundations of our craft.
But somewhere along the way a number of communicators seem to have missed out on the idea that we should also treat our audience with respect.
A phrase that annoys me more than just about anything else in the field of science communication is “dumbing down”.
But somewhere along the way a number of communicators seem to have missed out on the idea that we should also treat our audience with respect.
A phrase that annoys me more than just about anything else in the field of science communication is “dumbing down”.
In science communication and any other form of communication we are always told to think about our audience. It is one of the foundations of our craft. But somewhere along the way a number of communicators seem to have missed out on the idea that we should also treat our audience with respect.
A phrase that annoys me more than just about anything else in the field of science communication is “dumbing down”.
Aside from the breathtaking arrogance of the phrase, which suggests your audience is inferior and part of the great unwashed that needs to be elevated, it completely misconstrues the role of both science and science communicator.
A recent Twitter conversation was initiated by Dr Paige Jarreau when she askedWhy is Science Communication Important?. It was highlighted in the much-loved The SciComm 25 (8.28.15) by Kirk Englehardt. Reading it really opened a can of worms for me around why we communicate and how we think about our audience.
There were a lot of comments in the thread, suggesting science was the best path to understand our world and that the general public didn’t understand science and it was our job to help them. There was an implicit sense of us-and-them in the discussion and a suggestion that we, meaning scientists and science communicators, knew what was best and had to help those who did not.
Then Justin Beach said in a pair of tweets: “I think part of the disconnect is in levels of education. For many people science is the subject they tried to avoid in school. I think many scientists have a hard time “dumbing it down” to that level”.
In so many ways, these tweets went to the heart of my concerns.
It was clear that Justin was uncomfortable with the term “dumbing it down” because he put it in quotes. There was also a powerful implication of us-and-them, although I doubt Justin even thought of it in that way.
Then Sean Webb nailed what science communicators really do when he said as part of his tweet: “ …A translation is needed. We don’t speak the same language”.
Indeed, we are translators.
We are not dumbing down science for the masses, we are translating it to another language.
A barrister or high court judge may not understand the complexity of your science, but that doesn’t make them stupid.
My mechanic is a 60-year-old bearded fellow who rebuilds vintage cars and never finished high school. He regularly translates what the issue is with my car into language I can understand. He also talks about the possibilities of what could happen if I don’t get a certain repair done and how long I can continue driving without it. He talks to me about engineering, risk and cost all the time.
He recognizes I’m a bit clueless about car engines, so he translates the processes into expressions I can understand. He even stops and checks what parts of the car engine I do know about and those that I don’t. He keeps it simple but he also respects me as the owner (at least publicly :-) ) and as the fellow who helps pay his bills.
What about those incredibly well educated people from other countries who come to live in your country? Your native tongue is their second language and although incredibly well educated, their literacy in your language may be that of a young teenager.
Everyone from every walk of life has special skills that even a Nobel winning scientist can’t emulate. Try putting a Nobel Prize winning chemist in charge of a checkout counter at a supermarket on a busy night and see how they go.
And then Tim Miller added a real wrinkle to my thoughts on respecting an audience when he said in that Twitter thread: “Because if it isn’t shared, it isn’t science. Science requires collaboration, which requires communication”.
The worst thing about scientists and science communicators talking dismissively about “dumbing down” their science for an audience, is that many are struggling to even communicate with their peers in aligned fields.
The silos that exist even within scientific fields make communications with peers increasingly difficult. But to get people to collaborate, researchers need to talk in a language that their potential collaborators in an entirely different field will understand.
Only the most arrogant of them would consider that communication to be “dumbing it down” because in that case they respect the audience.
As all good communicators/translators know, there is a different language again for policymakers, CEOs of multinational companies, funding bodies, graduate students, school children, engineers… and so on.
If I had my way, the phrase “dumbing down” or the even more cringe-worthy “headlining it up” would be removed entirely from the lexicon of all communicators.
We are translators of science (with a little bit of attention seeking behavior thrown in).
If we refer to what we do as “translating science” we will avoid the unconscious bias that comes with “dumbing down” which suggests our audiences are stupid. It is vital for us to understand that the different members of the public are not beneath us, they just have different backgrounds, experiences, skills, knowledge and education.
In science communication it’s not about us-and-them it is just about us – all of us.
A phrase that annoys me more than just about anything else in the field of science communication is “dumbing down”.
Aside from the breathtaking arrogance of the phrase, which suggests your audience is inferior and part of the great unwashed that needs to be elevated, it completely misconstrues the role of both science and science communicator.
A recent Twitter conversation was initiated by Dr Paige Jarreau when she askedWhy is Science Communication Important?. It was highlighted in the much-loved The SciComm 25 (8.28.15) by Kirk Englehardt. Reading it really opened a can of worms for me around why we communicate and how we think about our audience.
There were a lot of comments in the thread, suggesting science was the best path to understand our world and that the general public didn’t understand science and it was our job to help them. There was an implicit sense of us-and-them in the discussion and a suggestion that we, meaning scientists and science communicators, knew what was best and had to help those who did not.
Then Justin Beach said in a pair of tweets: “I think part of the disconnect is in levels of education. For many people science is the subject they tried to avoid in school. I think many scientists have a hard time “dumbing it down” to that level”.
In so many ways, these tweets went to the heart of my concerns.
It was clear that Justin was uncomfortable with the term “dumbing it down” because he put it in quotes. There was also a powerful implication of us-and-them, although I doubt Justin even thought of it in that way.
Then Sean Webb nailed what science communicators really do when he said as part of his tweet: “ …A translation is needed. We don’t speak the same language”.
Indeed, we are translators.
We are not dumbing down science for the masses, we are translating it to another language.
A barrister or high court judge may not understand the complexity of your science, but that doesn’t make them stupid.
My mechanic is a 60-year-old bearded fellow who rebuilds vintage cars and never finished high school. He regularly translates what the issue is with my car into language I can understand. He also talks about the possibilities of what could happen if I don’t get a certain repair done and how long I can continue driving without it. He talks to me about engineering, risk and cost all the time.
He recognizes I’m a bit clueless about car engines, so he translates the processes into expressions I can understand. He even stops and checks what parts of the car engine I do know about and those that I don’t. He keeps it simple but he also respects me as the owner (at least publicly :-) ) and as the fellow who helps pay his bills.
What about those incredibly well educated people from other countries who come to live in your country? Your native tongue is their second language and although incredibly well educated, their literacy in your language may be that of a young teenager.
Everyone from every walk of life has special skills that even a Nobel winning scientist can’t emulate. Try putting a Nobel Prize winning chemist in charge of a checkout counter at a supermarket on a busy night and see how they go.
And then Tim Miller added a real wrinkle to my thoughts on respecting an audience when he said in that Twitter thread: “Because if it isn’t shared, it isn’t science. Science requires collaboration, which requires communication”.
The worst thing about scientists and science communicators talking dismissively about “dumbing down” their science for an audience, is that many are struggling to even communicate with their peers in aligned fields.
The silos that exist even within scientific fields make communications with peers increasingly difficult. But to get people to collaborate, researchers need to talk in a language that their potential collaborators in an entirely different field will understand.
Only the most arrogant of them would consider that communication to be “dumbing it down” because in that case they respect the audience.
As all good communicators/translators know, there is a different language again for policymakers, CEOs of multinational companies, funding bodies, graduate students, school children, engineers… and so on.
If I had my way, the phrase “dumbing down” or the even more cringe-worthy “headlining it up” would be removed entirely from the lexicon of all communicators.
We are translators of science (with a little bit of attention seeking behavior thrown in).
If we refer to what we do as “translating science” we will avoid the unconscious bias that comes with “dumbing down” which suggests our audiences are stupid. It is vital for us to understand that the different members of the public are not beneath us, they just have different backgrounds, experiences, skills, knowledge and education.
In science communication it’s not about us-and-them it is just about us – all of us.