Whenever one comes across an interesting debate in science communication, one will always find criticism about academic writing. Generally, it is considered opaque, jargon-filled and many times incomprehensible. So, when a person without a deep scientific background reads an academic paper or an academic book, they blame the writing and the writer for making it complicated.
I am the first person to admit that academic writing needs drastic improvement. But there is another point which I want to make in this essay. Being an academic: as a student, as a teacher, as a researcher and as an editor, I have read, heard, seen and discussed with so many academics who are very creative and have great clarity of thought. Over the past many years, I have seen outstanding science communicators who can express their thoughts and opinions in a comprehensible way, and this is always inspiring.
So, there is a disconnect between what people read, hear and see about academic scientific content and what academicians do to make themselves clear. So, this motivates two questions: a) what academics can do to make sure that their writing and exposition are more comprehensible and cater to the public? b) how the public can consume academic scientific information? In this essay, I discuss these issues.
The Two Versions
One solution is to have two versions of their work at their disposal. The first version is for a specialized, scientific audience with whom they correspond as part of their research papers and academic books. In here, one uses rigorous analysis and sometimes unavoidable jargon to express precise thoughts and extract in-depth analysis. This is essential because if one is working at the forefront of knowledge, one must get to that point with minimum resistance and maximum efficiency. In the first version, the assumption is that the person reading the text has some basic scientific background and, with some effort, will be able to retrace all the assumptions made in the text. Again, I am not proposing the text to be complicated. But making a case for better communication at the forefront of knowledge. Writing a comprehensive yet academically rigorous argument is not easy. All of us, the academics, should strive to create a good text that can be understood with an in-depth reading.
Opening to Public
The second version is an explanation of the first version in plain language without the usage of jargon, acronyms and complicated equations. This also makes a strong case for bringing analogies where one can take the concepts that are abstract and convert them into everyday objects or relationships so that the public can comprehend the thought behind the abstraction.
The second version is not a very easy version to create because it needs a kind of translation of thought that is not straightforward and requires one to have a deeper understanding of the relationships within the abstraction. The advantageous fallout of the second version is that it forces an expert to think in such a way that they must really go into the core principles of their work and extract meaning. This means that the second version is helping the expert to understand things better, which is vital for their own sake.
Many times, when I have forced myself to create a second version of my primary work, I have ended up gaining more information and insight into my own abstract work, which I would have not obtained but for the initiation of the second version. Given that people are more interested in knowing what is happening in academic work and how it can be related to the public, there will always be interest among a large audience. So, this process of creating two versions is necessary nowadays. It also means that academics have a very nice way to make their work connected to a larger audience.
Public Consumption of Scientific Information
So, now I want to discuss about what the public can do when they come across academic work. First and the foremost aspect I want to emphasize is that research papers and academic books are not like reading novels. It needs engagement with the text, and generally, one will not come across a page-turner. This means the general reader must spend more time on the assumptions and the questions discussed in the text. These texts are difficult to read in a single sitting. One will have to consult multiple sources and build the information which is presented in the text. This is how generally an academic text is written, and most of the time it is not compiled in one sitting. Therefore, one cannot expect a person to read academic text, especially if it is discussing some complex concepts in a single sitting. So, what I would suggest is whenever one comes across an academic work, please explore the work through a summary, if available. A summary of the abstract academic text is now becoming popular even among academic journals, and many of them publish a descriptive summary in a narrative style which is generally comprehensible to a broader audience. If the public finds the summary also to be complicated, the next best thing is to talk to a knowledgeable person who can explain things better. (Note: sometimes knowledgeable people may not explain things well. So be choosy)
The other important aspect is if you are interested in a scientific concept and you want to learn more, explore it in a gradual way – from a broader source to a specialized source. So, for example, if you want to learn something about climate change, do a cursory reading on Wikipedia about that concept and note down the primary references furnished. Listen to some podcasts and watch some YouTube videos related to that concept.
Thereafter, what is important is that you should extract good primary references from these platforms such as Wikipedia, podcasts and YouTube videos. This identification of primary sources and perhaps even a good book on this particular topic will help you to identify authentic information. This way of exploration gives you an advantage of first getting the big picture of the concept and then moving towards the specialized aspect that you are interested in. Therefore, this combination of the big picture and the narrow specialization will enrich your thoughts on that particular concept. So, what I would suggest you do is to explore tertiary and secondary sources such as Wikipedia articles, videos and podcasts to begin with, then extract good primary sources and secondary sources from that exploration, and then go deeper. All this depends on how deep you want to go into that topic.
Always remember that a Wikipedia article, a podcast or a video is a kind of a tertiary or a secondary source at its best. Most of the time, they are not the primary sources and therefore, it is always important to keep this in your mind when you are citing your sources in your discussion. To be more authentic, you will always have to go to the primary source and know the nuances of a particular concept from the original work.
Academic Thoughts with the Public in Mind
In conclusion, academic writing surely needs drastic change, especially in the way things are expressed in a journal or an academic book. Academics will also have to think about how to generate information that is not only applicable to a specialized audience but also to the public. Such information would be of very high value not only to the public but also to people in the peripheral research areas, and importantly it will add greater understanding to the expert who is generating this kind of information.
The public should also be a bit more patient to engage with the academic text and should explore the relevant information. This is getting easier, given that information is not at a premium nowadays. The availability of tertiary and secondary sources is abundant. How one makes use of that resource and how we connect those resources to primary data is both a craft and an art. It needs immersion with the sources.
At the end of the day, we need better communication between the specialized experts and the public. After all, academic thoughts should have a direct implication on thoughts of the society. We academics should also be cognisant about the vice versa.
VISMAYA - History & Philosophy of Science 