Cover of The Chicago Guide to Communicating Science
The Chicago Guide to Communicating Science Second Edition
by Scott L. Montgomery
University of Chicago Press, 2017
Paper: 978-0-226-14450-4 | Electronic: 978-0-226-14464-1
DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226144641.001.0001

AVAILABLE FROM

University of Chicago Press (paper, ebook)
ABOUT THIS BOOKAUTHOR BIOGRAPHYREVIEWSTABLE OF CONTENTS

ABOUT THIS BOOK

A handy, compact, accessible guide to help every scientist share their work with the general public

For more than a decade, The Chicago Guide to Communicating Science has been the go-to reference for anyone who needs to write or speak about their research. Whether a student writing a thesis, a faculty member composing a grant proposal, or a public information officer crafting a press release, Scott Montgomery’s advice is perfectly adaptable to any scientific writer’s needs.

This new edition has been thoroughly revised to address crucial issues in the changing landscape of scientific communication, with an increased focus on those writers working in corporate settings, government, and nonprofit organizations as well as academia. Half a dozen new chapters tackle the evolving needs and paths of scientific writers. These sections address plagiarism and fraud, writing graduate theses, translating scientific material, communicating science to the public, and the increasing globalization of research.

The Chicago Guide to Communicating Science recognizes that writers come to the table with different needs and audiences. Through solid examples and concrete advice, Montgomery sets out to help scientists develop their own voice and become stronger communicators. He also teaches readers to think about their work in the larger context of communication about science, addressing the roles of media and the public in scientific attitudes as well as offering advice for those whose research concerns controversial issues such as climate change or emerging viruses.

More than ever, communicators need to be able to move seamlessly among platforms and styles. The Chicago Guide to Communicating Science’s comprehensive coverage means that scientists and researchers will be able to expertly connect with their audiences, no matter the medium.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY

Scott L. Montgomery is an affiliate faculty member in the Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies at the University of Washington. He is the author or coauthor of numerous books, most recently The Shape of the New: Four Big Ideas and How They Made the Modern World and Does Science Need a Global Language? English and the Future of Research, the latter published by the University of Chicago Press. He lives in Seattle.

REVIEWS

“Montgomery wants scientists to cast off the straitjacket of convention when they write for other scientists, or at least to ask a friend to loosen the ties. He covers a huge amount of ground, from papers and review articles to book reviews, presentations, and online publishing. He has some excellent practical advice for nervous publishing virgins with writer’s block as well as encouragement for more experienced writers flirting coyly with metaphor and the occasional rhetorical flourish.”
— Praise for the first edition, New Scientist

“Montgomery acknowledges that the training of scientists, unlike higher education in the humanities, has long excluded the formal development of writing, oral presentation, and editing. But he sets out to dispel the notion that scientists are inherently less skilled at the art of communication. . . . Armed with a little more knowledge of basic tenets of writing, he says, any scientist can write with eloquence.”
— Praise for the first edition, Science

“Enhanced with approximately 100 additional pages, this second edition is a testament to the success of the first one. . . . Montgomery emphasizes reaching nontechnical audiences and characterizes clear and compelling communications as ‘required forms of professional competence.’”
— Choice

“Montgomery again provides accessible, actionable advice that will help researchers excel at the fundamentals of their craft, from writing and reviewing scientific manuscripts to drafting compelling grant proposals and to delivering engaging oral presentations. However, it is in the second edition’s newest material that the book truly shines. The author’s exploration of new topics such as teaching science communication, communicating science to public audiences, science translation, and online communication necessarily address the increased dynamism of the modern communication ecosystem for science.”
— Quarterly Review of Biology

"That the author excels at demystifying the language of science will surprise no one who is familiar with the original edition. Montgomery again provides accessible, actionable advice that will help researchers excel at the fundamentals of their craft, from writing and reviewing scientific manuscripts to drafting compelling grant proposals and to delivering engaging oral presentations. However, it is in the second edition's newest material that the book truly shines. The author's exploration of new topics such as teaching science communication, communicating science to public audiences, science translation, and online communication necessarily address the increased dynamism of the modern communication ecosystem for science."
— Quarterly Review of Biology

TABLE OF CONTENTS


DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226144641.003.0001
[scientific communication;technical language;authorship;rhetoric;competence]
Science exists because scientists are writers and speakers. Communication is a core part of research, not separate from it, and is therefore a key part of the career of any scientist. Skillful writing can add significantly to the impact of scientific work, but such skill is not widespread and it does not come easy to scientists. There are a number of reasons for this. One reason is the highly stylized nature of scientific discourse, which must still tell a story. Another reason has to do with the attitude, or view, a scientist may have toward this discourse. Too often, this view sees communicating research as a difficult chore without any truly engaging or creative elements. This is reinforced by the supposedly universal IMRAD (Introduction, Materials & Methods, Results, and Discussion) template for scientific articles. IMRAD, however, is not universal and does not apply to many types of scientific papers, like those that are theoretical or based on fieldwork and descriptive discussion. Each field has its own accepted practices of expression. Scientists must learn these. In doing so, they can also become aware of the rhetoric they are using and make it more skillful, interesting, and informative.


DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226144641.003.0002
[scientific discourse;Royal Society;storytelling;Newton;Watson and Crick]
Scientists communicate in a professional dialect that has evolved. It is very instructive to examine how this dialect has changed since the time of Isaac Newton, since it shows that scientists are the heirs of this dialect and use it at a specific point in its history. It has continued to change in recent decades. This is revealed by an analysis of the famous 1952 paper by James Watson and Francis Crick on the structure of DNA. As written, this paper would not be acceptable to a prestigious journal today. Yet it contains all of the essential elements of good scientific storytelling, addressing the questions of what was done, why it was done, how it was done, what was found, and what it means. The paper is rhetorically skillful. It demonstrates that grammar is not the key to good writing, that there are many other aspects, from organization to word choice, that are essential. It also shows that scientists do have opportunities for creativity and eloquence, but the results are subtle.


DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226144641.003.0003
[authorial ear;critical reading;model;style;imitation]
Skillful writers in any field have developed an ear for what sounds right and what does not, somewhat like musicians. Unlike in music, scientists don't receive training in this skill and are usually left to acquire it on their own. This kind of ear can be trained in the same basic way scientists learn to do research, by reading and internalizing good models. Such models then become mentors in a sense, reference examples that can be studied, even memorized in part, and imitated. To identify such models requires a change in perspective. It means paying attention to the voice of the writing, not just the content. “Voice” means the rhythm of the language, length and structure of sentences and sections, detailed choice of words, how the writer decides to begin new paragraphs. All of this should flow within an organization that fits the content. There are some techniques useful to choosing and using models. One way for a scientist to choose is to ask her/himself: is this a paper (presentation, lecture, etc.) I wish I had done myself? Reading over models can also help with writer’s block by stimulating the authorial ear and getting the flow of language started again.


DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226144641.003.0004
[functional communication;experimentation;intended reader;organization;writing environment;revising]
Scientists can choose to be proficient, functional communicators or strive for higher levels of skill. Both exist in science. Functional communication is preferred by most scientists and is admirable when achieved. It is not the result of mechanical production. Writing is a process of experimentation. No matter how well planned out, a paper will involve struggle, dead ends, triumphs, and revelations. Every text has an intended reader, or audience, and also an authorial voice. Being aware of these and how they are set up can add consistency and authority. The skeleton of any writing is its organization. Good organization is essential as a guide to flow and logic but will not determine quality of writing. With regard to common usage, including units, reference style, etc., scientists should follow what is accepted practice in their discipline. There are no universal standards for these and other aspects of article writing. Environment is an important and often overlooked factor. Like other writers, scientists should choose settings that help them specifically to write. In the end, quality is the result of revision, not inspiration.


DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226144641.003.0005
[creative expression;eloquence;technique;style;word choice;metaphor]
It is an unfortunate myth that scientific communication has no room for creativity and eloquence. Though believed by many scientists, this is not true. All forms of persuasive writing can be shaped creatively, and there are many examples in the scientific literature, though they are often subtle. To write creatively in science means creating texts that are both effective and interesting and doing so consciously. There are many techniques for this, such as changes in sentence length; parallel structure; use of questions at key points; smooth transitions between paragraphs; refined phrasing; alliteration. Specific places exist in any text for eloquence, such as opening and closing paragraphs, other opportunities for generalization, points of emphasis, and places where the argument takes a new turn. In all cases, authorial expertise in science lies in subtlety and restraint, not showmanship. Science is reserved in its discourse, so eloquence needs to be similar and not draw attention to itself too often. Editors and reviewers usually begin to be uncomfortable at the point where they feel “science” is being sacrificed to “style.”


DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226144641.003.0006
[review process;editor;peer review;professionalism;acceptance rate]
Journal editors are important quality control managers. Their work is often difficult and thankless and is done on a volunteer basis. Editors have power and influence as gatekeepers and decision-makers about the direction of many fields in science. They do not have a free hand, however, but are constrained by many factors, such as the review process itself. Journals often have their own specifications for articles and submission, and authors should always follow the directions provided. Otherwise, they will earn an immediate rejection or prejudice an editor against them. Peer review, despite flaws, continues to be the dominant method for determining what gets published. Authors must expect to receive criticism, which can be blunt and harsh in science, and must learn to respond to it in a professional manner. This can be difficult. It is essential, however, for one’s reputation and career. Keeping a cool head in any reply means focusing on the quality of the paper and whether comments by reviewers aid this or not. Rejected papers can be submitted elsewhere. One rejection is never total.


DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226144641.003.0007
[plagiarism;falsified data;misconduct;antiplagiarism software]
Problems of plagiarism and fraud have continued to grow as science itself has expanded in scale. Such acts defame the fundamental basis for sharing research, trust. Individuals or groups risk a great deal by doing this. But such acts do more damage than authors realize. They waste time, money, and other resources of others who seek to correct cheating, while the effects can destroy the reputation of a lab, department, even university, and, in some cases, affect the scientific status of a nation. Falsified results on a key subject can damage the work of many others while also poisoning a field. Unethical conduct makes science itself look bad at a time when it is under suspicion by portions of the public. Historical factors and challenges related to language may be involved, since English now functions as science’s lingua franca. Yet much misconduct comes from western nations, including the U.S. Defining plagiarism is not always a simple matter. No standards exist for how many words or what structures must be copied. This has become an important matter, given the array of software now available to tag plagiarized parts of a paper; the problem of “false positives” is real.


DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226144641.003.0008
[academia;industry;government;nonprofit;NGO;foundation]
The institutional settings of research in society define a subject that scientists should understand. These settings have different goals and resources that directly impact how research is done and what is done with its results. In wealthier nations, inquiry occurs in four main settings: industry, academia, government, and private nonprofit institutions. Industry performs the most research, but publishes the least, due to the confidentiality of results. Academia is next, with the broadest range of inquiry and a maximum of publication. Government labs focus on subject areas relevant to national priorities. This, too, can involve a wide array of fields. Government research has been responsible for the internet, lasers, GPS, and the exploration of space, to cite only a few examples. Nonprofit research is carried out by research institutes, private foundations, and NGOs, all of which tend to restrict themselves to specific areas. Each of the four settings has its own communicational demands and opportunities. Complications can arise when there is collaboration. This four-part model for scientific inquiry only partly applies to many developing nations, where resources are less but growth in scientific work is most rapid.


DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226144641.003.0009
[scientific paper;abstract;primary literature;references;coauthorship]
The peer-reviewed scientific paper published in a journal continues to be recognized as the core of research communication. However, research results also appear in a number of other venues as well. There is no universal structure or format for a research paper, so it is essential that every scientist explore the literature of her or his field to understand what counts as publishable research. Most journals do look for such basic elements as: title, abstract, introduction/background, methods/materials (if relevant), discussion of results, summary/conclusion, references, and supplemental materials. All of these elements require skill to be done well. Examples both good and poor are presented in this chapter and discussed. Determining the order of coauthors can be challenging but is an essential task and must be done according to any rules that a journal states in its advice to authors. Because a paper can only be submitted to one journal at a time, it is important to make a careful and realistic choice. Scientists should be aware that the scientific paper will continue to evolve in ways that will be influenced by the online medium.


DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226144641.003.0010
[review article;book review;contribution;criticism;professionalism]
Scientists have a number of options besides the research paper to contribute important material to their field. Most scientists read review articles, letters to the editor, book reviews, and other communications to keep up on developments in both their own discipline and in science as a whole. Though not all of these count the same in terms of career capital, they can all have significant influence. This is especially true of the review article, which can summarize the state of knowledge, new directions in research, and more. Examples are provided and discussed to show how such an article may be written. Book reviews are another part of the secondary literature that are read more often than is commonly realized. There are good and poor ways to approach such a review, and these are covered. In addition, whether in letters to the editor or some other form, providing criticism of a published paper and responding to it require skill no less than other forms of scientific communication. In all cases, it is essential to remain professional in wording and tone. Such is not merely a matter of dignity but an aid to accuracy.


DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226144641.003.0011
[proposal;grant;funding;merit criteria;funding program]
The proposal is one of the more important technical documents written by scientists and engineers today. Proposals obviously lead to funding (or not), and thus make a great deal of science possible. But writing a proposal also forces a researcher or research team to step back and create a systematic plan of work—to conceive and organize its activities, apportion responsibility, consider monetary needs and constraints, think about timing. Proposals very often serve as literary reservoirs, too. If done well, they can provide much material for future articles, talks and poster sessions, press releases, and so forth. Often enough, a proposal is the first real “publication” to emerge from a particular line of research. For a successful proposal, it is essential to understand the criteria used in evaluation. These include not only scientific content but significance the research may have, feasibility of the proposed work and timeline, and also quality of presentation. A well-written and organized proposal provides assurance that findings will be adequately (or better) communicated to the field; a poorly done proposal promises the opposite. It is always helpful to use successful proposals as a guide.


DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226144641.003.0012
[visuals;graphs;charts;line drawings;photographs;illustrations;resolution;font]
Modern science relies deeply on illustration—graphs, charts, drawings, photographs, maps, models, and other forms. Technical knowledge today is inseparable from visual presentation, with its power to order and convey information. Scientists appreciate excellent graphics. Illustrations that offer data or interpretation with clarity are a high achievement in technical communication. Excellent software options exist to help with this. Scientists should be aware of any such programs specific to their field but should evaluate them first. Using models (excellent examples) is especially important and can save a great deal of time and effort. In all cases, it is essential to keep in mind the specific informational purpose of any visual. Advice is included in this chapter on charts, graphs, line drawings, photographs, schematic drawings, and combination visuals. Digital imagery allows for much use of color and fine detail. But researchers must obey explicit instructions for visual materials that journals provide. In the end, visuals will evolve, too, like other elements in scientific communication.


DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226144641.003.0013
[oral communication;oral presentations;visuals;design;professional talk]
The professional talk is a type of lecture. Listeners are transformed into learners, and you become their instructor. An oral presentation is also a type of performance, because it humanizes research knowledge. For any talk, the scientist should prepare well in advance. This means creating a basic outline, thinking about visuals to include, closely observing other talks that are high quality. Storyboarding, which lays out visuals in a logical order, is a well-proven approach but may not work for everyone. It is essential to practice a talk and find parts that are less smooth than others and to work on them especially. Stage fright is energy that can be used to show enthusiasm. A talk can be envisioned as answering a set of questions similar to those for a research paper, i.e. why did you do this work, how did you do it, what did you find, what do you think it means. Visuals in science are too often wordy and overly busy. Speakers must put themselves in the place of the listener for every image and ask “can I understand this in a minute or less?”


DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226144641.003.0014
[PhD thesis;graduate dissertation;dissertation]
Completing a graduate thesis, especially a PhD dissertation, marks the boundary between being a student and being a professional scientist. The thesis is proof that a person has what it takes to be a researcher, if they wish to pursue this path. In its structure, format, length, and other specific aspects, the thesis will vary from one institution and field to another. Thus, students must find good examples from their department and (if possible) main advisor to use as guides. A thesis is more than a greatly expanded scientific paper, usually. It includes a review of the relevant literature, for instance, possibly a statement of purpose, and a much more complete display of data, analyses, and more. If a student has published papers already, some universities allow these to be used as chapters and to comprise the majority of a thesis. This is true only for some fields. Common problems, such as poor organization, broken logic, overly long bibliography, and too much use of qualification, are discussed in this chapter. Advice is also given for each common section of a dissertation, including title, abstract, table of contents, literature review, and so on.


DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226144641.003.0015
[online science;social media;open access]
The internet has altered scientific communication profoundly, mostly in good ways. Changes related to publication and communication among researchers and with the public will continue to evolve, as new digital capabilities are introduced. Every scientist should learn how to work online with awareness of what tools, opportunities, and pitfalls exist. Online communication, including social media, blogs, and other options allow scientists to publish their work and offer their ideas and opinions to new audiences, professional and popular. Such exposure demands awareness of online persona, what information should be shared with the public, and other key questions. There are pitfalls to online science, too. Researchers should know about predatory publishers and be up-to-date on such fraud in their field. The largest issue in online scientific publication concerns the high price of many journals and toll barriers to much quality research. The issue of open access publishing is therefore very important, highly debated, and also evolving. The various options that currently exist are discussed in this chapter and evaluated. Such options should be considered temporary, as none of them entirely solve the issues raised by existing access barriers.


DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226144641.003.0016
[non-native speaker;native speaker;global language;lingua franca;language learning]
English has become a global lingua franca for science, medicine, and engineering. To be fully active international members of their profession, scientists must read, speak, and write English. Learning English can be a burden. However, foreign language study is a regular part of secondary and tertiary education, so English should not be viewed as “unfair” or “discriminatory” but more like a needed skill, similar to mathematics. More non-native speakers use it today in science than native speakers. Scientists who wish to improve their English know that writing in especially difficult. It helps to make a file of excellent articles, including perhaps some that a native English-speaking colleague recommends. One article per week or two can be studied by repeated reading, with some paragraphs memorized. Adding made-up sentences to a chosen paragraph or re-writing it in the same style with different information is helpful. Such attempts to imitate and learn from actual papers are always better than only studying grammar. A goal is to develop an ear for what sounds correct. Other exercises are recommended in this chapter. Patience is necessary. Learning to write in a foreign language is a form of training that requires time.


DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226144641.003.0017
[science translation;interpretation;machine translation;multilingual;source language;target language]
Translating scientific material is an essential part of science itself. It is a profession that has expanded greatly since 2000. Greatest demand is in the private sector, as international firms in biomedicine, electronics, information technology, agriculture, and energy now do business in multiple languages. Governments and international organizations need translation work done regularly for key documents aimed at both scientific and non-scientific audiences (e.g. climate reports from the IPCC). Demand is also widespread on a personal level, for lectures, papers, web pages, etc. Languages most in demand, besides English, include: Spanish, French, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese. Yet many other languages, from Turkish to Vietnamese, are also part of the market. Translators today tend to specialize in one or two fields, a trend supported by translation software. The goal of a science translator is to make the result sound as if originally written in the target language. This is an ideal, but a good translator can regularly approach it. Some helpful advice to new translators is offered in this chapter, e.g. how to evaluate a project, ways to approach a difficult document, and more. As a whole, science translators practice a noble and necessary profession.


DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226144641.003.0018
[mass media;social media;expertise;the public;science journalism;controversy]
Scientific knowledge has power, and much of it is paid for by the public. Most scientific work also has goals that overlap with public benefit: to increase health, explore space, create new materials, among others. Such are reasons why science is of interest to the media; science is often news. The internet has created many new online science magazines and other outlets, yet the lay public still gets most news about science from traditional mass media. This will change with time but only if scientists become more comfortable with explaining their work in online venues. Still, researchers need to understand the demands of journalism, which are focused on the human dimension more than on information. There are proven ways to prepare for an interview. A helpful method is to write a concise summary of your work that you can memorize or know thoroughly. With controversial subjects, like evolution, facts will not be enough in an interview or public meeting, Certain types of language and tone needed in dealing with challenging questions or even anti-science attitudes. It is a great help for researchers to educate themselves about what the public might want to know and why.


DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226144641.003.0019
[science writing;public lecture;public talk;rhetoric;models;rehearse;lead]
It is a myth that everything in science can be expressed in plain language. To write or speak about science accurately and interestingly using ordinary language is a true skill that takes time to develop. A key point is that communicating scientific knowledge to the public is actually writing or speaking about science. Unlike a professional article, science writing opens with the chief message. It should tell a clear story with a sharp ending. Metaphor, humor, and irony are all tools to be used. These same points apply to a public talk. Here, the task involves putting a human face on science. The display of interest and enthusiasm in your subject is essential. Unlike a conference talk, a public talk works best if it has the tone of a conversation, fluid, controlled, and confident. Most helpful is to find online examples (e.g. on YouTube) of talks you admire and to use these as models. Some TED talks can serve this purpose, but these have a specific purpose, tend to be highly scripted, and are not applicable to every situation.


DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226144641.003.0020
[teaching;analysis;exercises;models;instruction;workshop;communication course]
Changing people’s ability to communicate begins with changing their ideas about communication. This is challenging, especially with writing and speaking because of the strong personal dimension. Thus, instructors do well to establish a emotional engagement with students. This can be helped by learning students’ names before the first class, using personal stories relevant to class material, humor, compliments, ad your own writing for class analysis and criticism. Dividing a course into an early portion on critical reading and a later part on writing/speaking can be helpful. Overall, use of variable quality examples for analysis and discussion helps motivate participation and strengthen confidence. Re-writing poor examples into better versions can help. High quality examples also need to be closely examined. If science writing for public audiences is a goal, compare a good example of such writing with a scientific paper to highlight differences. Models both bad and good can thus form the core of a workshop or class on scientific communication. At the same time, instructors should be free to design their own courses and choose what topics, examples, and techniques they are most comfortable using.

Book published by University of Chicago Press, 2017. Page maintained by BiblioVault.