- This session focused on how to communicate that science is a process. Some people think that the "how" is boring, but it needn't be! So much in science is about the questions, and not the results. But often the process is slow and messy and doesn’t fit conventional narrative structures. So how do we tell engaging stories about the process of science? How can we use process to provide context, move beyond the "paper-of-the-week“ and develop longform techniques in journalism? In short: How can we follow the "sciencing"?
We started the discussion from these questions:
Should we follow the “cuckoo clock model” of sci comm (black box and occasional announcements) or should we report what is going on inside the box?
Potential reasons for rare communication of the process of science
- It’s not interesting.
- It’s not important.
- It’s not possible.
- It has not occurred to us because of lack of tools.
Why should we do it? Or not?
If we should do it: How?
- — Matthew R. Francis (@DrMRFrancis)Thu, Feb 27 2014 19:35:55
- — Rachel (@raewing)Thu, Feb 27 2014 19:36:06
- — Puneet Kollipara (@pkollipara)Thu, Feb 27 2014 19:36:28
- — Matthew R. Francis (@DrMRFrancis)Thu, Feb 27 2014 19:37:27
- — Puneet Kollipara (@pkollipara)Thu, Feb 27 2014 19:38:13Maybe process of science is boring to public. Or it's not important (i.e., what matters is clock is right, now how it works). #scioProcess
- — Matthew R. Francis (@DrMRFrancis)Thu, Feb 27 2014 19:38:16