Scientific communication: a question of epistemology

All manuals dealing with scientific communication or just scientific writing start with the same obvious statement: the goal of scientific research is publication.

 

“A scientific experiment, no matter how spectacular the results, is not completed until the results are published. In fact, the cornerstone of the philosophy of science is based on the fundamental assumption that original research must be published; only thus can new   scientific knowledge be authenticated and then added to the existing data base that we call scientific knowledge.” Robert Day, How to write and publish a scientific paper, 3^rd ed. 1991

 

 

This fundamental assumption needs to be reflected upon in the present context where the education of scientists is overwhelmingly committed to technique and technology and where publishing has come under heavy pressure from a system based on blind competition and lust for recognition.

 

According to Robert Day, “the key to scientific writing is clarity. Successful scientific experimentation is the result of a clear mind attacking a clearly stated problem and producing clearly stated conclusions.”

This is the point I want to make here: I have observed that in many cases, difficulties in getting one’s research published arise from weaknesses in the way the research is conducted. Research questions or hypotheses are not clearly formulated, no research problem is clearly addressed , the strategy is missing, etc. These weaknesses are listed by reviewers as the main causes of rejection of papers (Roland, MC What referees say, 1995) or of research proposals (Roland MC, Common pitfalls in research proposals ).

In this context, we may wonder whether researchers can distinguish between data and results and what they are trying to publish, what the meaning and interest of their experimentations are. Thousands of abstracts circulate which contain only material and method sections and some “results”, with no rationale and no implications or perspectives sections.  

The following questions must therefore be raised: why do researchers communicate? What is the purpose of their communication? Communication being a two-way process, what about their intended audience?

Communication must not be confined to the technical aspects of science

Because of the weaknesses identified, training in scientific communication must deal with core issues in the conduct of research. The researcher needs help to clarify and formulate his research question and research problem; he needs to distance himself from his experiments to reflect about the meaning and interest of his work. But this must be done before it is too late! It is too late indeed to consider these elements once the data have been gathered and the researcher thinks he is ready to publish! The researcher is bound to feel frustrated and disappointed. Communication must be addressed from the very beginning of the research process.

Too often, training in scientific communication is limited to some practical and technical recipes or tricks.  The advice provided will most likely produce cosmetic changes. A lot of researchers are satisfied with this superficial approach which leaves their “secret gardens” untouched!

A system of « error in perpetuity » which doesn’t provide young researchers with core competencies

The present system of training in research is based on reproduction. The master/apprentice relationship which thrives in the scientific community has led to major interrogations and difficulties: Are senior researchers competent trainers? Do they devote enough time to this part of their job, getting themselves training in order to become better trainers ?What about the research practices which are transmitted from generation to generation : how can they be assessed ? etc.

Addressing the problem of writing, Robert Day notes that “most of today’s scientists did not have the chance to undertake a formal course in scientific writing. As graduate students, they learned to imitate the style and approach of previous authors (…). Many learned only to repeat all that is incorrect with respect to the prose and style of the authors before them, thus establishing a system of error in perpetuity.”

The core competencies involved in the exercise of the research profession (critical thinking, reasoning, problem-solving, reading and writing, etc) are crucial to the process of communication; conversely any piece of writing or any oral presentation must give evidence that the author possesses such competencies.

Clearly the question is: is the scientific community ready to tackle the issue of the quality of scientific communication by rethinking their research practices?

Scientific communication : a question of ethics, citizenship and responsibility

Researchers must pay more attention to the quality of their communication. Most of them seem content with their tribal communication as a  recent survey by the Royal Society (june 2006 ) « Survey of factors affecting science communication by scientists and engineers », tends to show. A lot of researchers are still reluctant to engage in public communication of science for two main reasons: one, it may damage the image of science (what is commonly called the “ivory tower syndrome”!); second, it doesn’t pay off to spend time communicating with the public: only scientific papers bring recognition and a better job and better funding! In fact, most researchers would be happy to leave the communication of science to specialized “science communicators”. But things are not that easy: the gap between science journalists and researchers has been widening. Science festivals meet with a lot of success and are given more and more funding at the European level. But the question remains of the role of researchers in society in the changing paradigm of communication.

The core competencies involved in the exercise of the research profession (critical thinking, reasoning, problem-solving, reading and writing, etc) are very similar to those involved in other professions and in what could be expected from an “enlightened citizen”. Are researchers ready to be “ordinary citizens”?

Read the report on "Public Engagement in Science" Oct.2007

Read more:

 

1.       Day, R., How to write publish a scientific paper, 3^rd edition, Cambridge University Press, 1989

2.       Kane, Th.S., The new oxford guide to writing, Oxford University Press, 1988

3.       Katz, M.J., Elements of the scientific paper, Yale University, London 1985

4.       Kirkman, J., Good style writing for science and technology, E & FN Spon, 1992

5.       Montgomery, S. L., The Chicago Guide to Communicating Science, University of Chicago Press, 2003

6.       O'Connor, M., Writing successfully in science, Chapman & Hall, London 1991

7.       Trenner, R., The bell labs writer, 2^ed edition, Kelly education and training center, 1987

8.       Turk, C., Kirkman, J., Effective Writing, E.& F.N. SPON, 2^nd ed.,1991

9.       Worsley.D., Mayer, B., The art of science writing, Teachers & Writers, New York 2000

10.   Young M., The technical writer's handbook, writing with style and clarity, University science books, California, 1989

11.   Zinsser, W., On writing well, an informal guide to writing nonfiction, 4^ed edition, Harper Perennial, 1990