Category: Seminar 3: Science Forward

Writing in the Sciences: Some Resources

When a subject intimidates a student, the student may rely on sources to say ideas for them (the block quote!), or rely on jargon in order to “conform” to the expectations of the subject, or even neglect to explain abstract ideas using concrete examples. Think of our discussions early n the semester like “what is science?”; how could we have discussed the abstract idea of “science” without the writings (serving as concrete examples) provided by Prof. Wilson?

Therefore, this page builds on the concepts and resources found on the Annotated Bibliography Resources page by focusing specifically on writing in the sciences. While writing an annotated bibliography ultimately depends on your ability to read and understand a source, writing in the sciences generally cleaves to the same principles of good writing in general. I believe in the relationship between being a strong reader and being a strong writer; most importantly, these skills can be improved upon no matter the age of the person or the phase of your education or career.

How to use this page

This page is not a “guide to writing for the sciences.” it is a carefully chosen set of sources aimed towards writing in the sciences. Because good writing “shows” rather than “tells,” I’ve embedded PDFs into these pages rather than summarize the sources for you; moreover, I encourage you to determine whether or not these sources will help you and if so, whether or not to find them yourself.

After looking over these sources (and the ones at the Annotated Bibliography page – there is some overlap), a very productive activity for students is to make an appointment with me during office hours and bring examples or a source that you’re reading or something that you’re writing. Together, we can discuss some of the concepts or suggestions from the sources below, or I can guide you through the activities suggested in any of the sources from this page or the Annotated Bibliography Resources page. Because of my lack of famliarity with the methods of scientific research or conventions of the discipline, I’m hesitant to edit or “look over” any work to offer constructive feedback. Working together on how to read a source or coaching you through an exercise would be more useful for both of us – I inevitably learn from students and studetns become empowered as self-learners.

Videos

  • Kristin Sainani’s online course “Writing in the Sciences” contains over 50 videos dedicated to writing in the sciences: Website | Youtube

Joshua Schimel, Writing Science

Embedded below are two PDFs with excerpts from Joshua Schimel’s book, Writing Science. The first PDF includes exercises that you can apply to your own writing and the second PDF contains his personal recommendations for writing resources. I personally can vouch for his recommendation of Style: Towards Clarity and Grace by Joseph Williams, which is applicable to any discipline and, with practice, will improve your writing no matter if a cover letter, informal email, or a formal academic paper.

[gview file=”http://eportfolios.macaulay.cuny.edu/wilson2016/files/2016/10/Schimel-J_Writing-in-Science_Ch-2-exercises.pdf”]

[gview file=”http://eportfolios.macaulay.cuny.edu/wilson2016/files/2016/10/Schimel-J_Appendix-B-Writing-Resources.pdf”]

 

Helen Sword, Stylish Academic Writing

Prof. Helen Sword at the University of Auckland wrote Stylish Academic Writing with the intention to give scholars tips on how to improve their writing rather than focus on why so much academic writing is … well, bad. In her introduction, she explains the various parts of her process: first, she surveyed seventy colleagues about the writers in their field who they considered “stylish.” In her second phase, she analyzed books and articles by more than 100 authors recommended to her by colleagues. Her third stage included assembling data:

I assembled a data set of one thousand academic articles from across the sciences, social sciences, and humanities; one hundred articles each from international journals in the fields of medicine, evolutionary biology, computer science, higher education, psychology, anthropology, law, philosophy, history and literary studies … I used them not only to locate real-life examples of both engaging and appalling academic prose but also to drill down into specific questions about style and the status quo. For example, how many articles in each discipline contain personal pronouns (I or we)? (Sword, Stylish Academic Writing, 9)

 

The usefulness of Sword’s explanation of method and the above quote is two-fold: first, it explains her research process; second, I like the way she explains the relationship between her data and the results – namely, the tips, exercises, recommendations, and examples – for scholars to learn how to improve. In other words, Sword’s introduction performs precisely what you’re being asked to do in Science Forward: begin with a tentative research topic, gather original data, and then use the data to provide insight into her original topic.

Her chapter about her method, “On Being Disciplined” demonstrates how her data upended or confirmed her original hypothesis, academic writing is shaped by convention rather than the discipline itself (Sword 20). As an evolutionary biologist, Prof. Wilson might be interested in this part of the chapter:

 

For example, I had anticipated that the science journals in my sample would all be highly prescriptive tolerating very little variance in structure, titling, or other points of style. This expectation proved true for medicine, a field in which researchers tend to work in large teams publish their findings in a standardized template. In evolutionary biology and computer science, however, I found considerable more expressive diversity. Ten percent of the evolutionary biologists in y sample opted for a unique or hybrid structure in a field where the standard Introduction, Method, Results, and Discussion (IMRAD) structure predominates … at least eleven percent of of the evolutionary biologists include one “engaging” element in their titles, such as a quote, a pun, or a question (Sword 18).

 

Her book includes “Spotlight” pages that highlight the accomplishments and writing of scholars in various fields in order to dispel the myth that there’s a mutually exclusionary relationship between being an engaging writer and being a strong scholar. Below is her spotlight on the physicist Nathaniel David Mermin:

[gview file=”http://eportfolios.macaulay.cuny.edu/wilson2016/files/2016/10/Sword-Helen_Spotlight.pdf”]

Aggregating links for Science Forward eportfolio sites

One of my favorite posts to add to Science Forward eportfolio sites is the “link round-up” post that aggregates links to science news and other related content from around the web into a single post. As an ITF, my job isn’t really to “create content” though I do think it’s important that we engage with the same issues alongside the students so that they know their ITFs are paying attention to the course and not just some “tech person.” This type of post is fun to create and easily tailored to the themes or issues discussed in a specific class. Here are some of the posts that I’ve created for Science Forward sites:

how does science & scientific thinking intersect with other disciplines?

A post with links categorized around the headings “Art and Science,” “Science & other industries and disciplines,” and “Critical Thinking, Intelligence, and the Nature of Knowledge.” Originally published 9/26/16.

Read More

science and science fiction

Links to articles about science news, science and entertainment, and satirical articles. Originally published 9/13/16.

Read More

scientific knowledge and the general public

A post published on the first class of Science Forward for the Fall 2016 semester created as supplement to the course topics.

Read More

communicating scientific research to the general public

A lengthier post that poses questions to students using two articles at The Atlantic’s website. Originally published 10/30/15.

Read More

Most importantly, this type of post aligns with Science Forward’s emphasis on scientific literacy, including the ability to evaluate and understand scientific information even when the information is presented by the news:

[aesop_video align=”center” src=”youtube” id=”9Ol1c7FSl-Q” caption=”‘Science Senses’ from the Science Forward video series” disable_for_mobile=”on” loop=”on” autoplay=”off” controls=”on” viewstart=”on” viewend=”on”]

As the video demonstrates, “science” might be a catch-all word for the processes of collecting data, testing data to the point that it can be considered knowledge, and then critically evaluate that information. Moreover, the link round-up post, by presenting them with a few mainstream science news articles, lets students test their science senses and begin to understand how and where distance is created between scientists and the general public, or between science and science journalism.

Link round-up: how does science & scientific thinking intersect with other disciplines?

This post aggregates links around some of the ideas and issues that have been discussed in class the past few weeks as well as some articles the intersections between science and other disciplines.

Art and Science

Art21 "Ecology" episode with a view of Mark Dion's installation titled Neukom Vivarium
Art21 “Ecology” episode with a view of Mark Dion’s installation Neukom Vivarium (2006)

Science & other industries and disciplines

Critical Thinking, Intelligence, and the Nature of Knowledge

 

science & science fiction

Science in the news

Science in entertainment

Science satire

Images Used for the Site & Scientific Literacy

Below are some excerpts from the descriptions of the original pictures that, depending on the eportfolio theme, show up as the site header and logo. I picked these images for their relatively simple compositions that wouldn’t compete with any text. For example, each work has a repeating single geometric shape (square, circle) and limited color palette, which creates the appearance of negative space when text is placed on it and therefore won’t be too busy for most screens.

When looking for pictures to use, I checked two places, Bing Homepage Gallery and NASA. Every day, each site showcases a high-res photograph of nature, science and tech, or architecture, and often makes the work available for download. I also like the descriptions used for the images – each site or space is very specific location, graphic, or with the case of NASA, taken with unusual equipment – meaning that most of the photos require some kind of explanation.

While these might simply be understood as a caption or description of what the pictures depict, it might be useful to think about these descriptions as an example of science journalism. What kind of scientific literacy is required for someone to understand these descriptions? Are these good examples of writing for a general audience? What could be improved? Read on to see the full-sized images and their descriptions!

Read more

Artist Mary Miss calls for artists and scientists to work together to communicate environmental issues to the broader public

 

Mary Miss’s South Cove (1984-87), Battery Park City, NY. Photo source: “Mary Miss’s South Cove” at scupturenature.com.

The Brooklyn Rail’s November 2015 issue is dedicated to the intersections between art and ecology! Guest editor Greg Lindquist poses some of the same questions discussed in Science Forward though specifically focuses on the question of whether or not art can play any role in communicating the impact of environmental damage to the general public:

“What function, then, should art serve in the context of the current environment and social concerns, and to what degree of efficacy? Should it solely problematize, polemicize or theorize? Or can art provide an aesthetic, emotional, and beautiful experience while empowering direct environmental action and policy change? Can beauty infiltrate and influence public opinion?”

Click here for the rest of his Editor’s Message column titled “Social Ecologies.”

This issue contains a piece titled “Remixing Messages: A Call for Collaboration Between Artists and Scientists” written by the artist Mary Miss:

The environmental issues facing us as a result of climate change are daunting. Scientists are doing important research to address the complex topics such as water supply, food access, air quality, and temperature rise that accompany global warming. Artists are in a unique position to reflect on these topics and engage people with issues that are hard to imagine because they are happening someplace else or in the future. How can these disciplines begin working together to get the interest and attention of a broad public audience? … As we have entered the 21st century, it has become clear that we need to redefine how we live our lives, use our resources, communicate, educate, work, and collaborate. It is a time when the imagination and the ability to envision alternatives are our greatest resources. In recent years a number of questions have arisen for many artists: how is it possible to have a more central role in shaping or bringing attention to the important issues of our times? How can the imagination, the prime territory of artists, be used to engage the broader public? How can artists participate in communicating the importance of global ecological awareness? The task is to create new bonds and reconfigure the old ones—between the built environment and the natural world, between various communities, and between our history and current needs. However, change cannot happen without the support, understanding, and participation of the individual citizens that make up our communities. Individuals are key to creating a new paradigm for a sustainable future.

Originally trained as a sculptor, Miss has been creating works using the land and surrounding environment for several decades – definitely take the time to view her works at marymiss.com. Because she creates public works of art, she has a unique perspective and tremendous amounts of experience in conveying complex issues both aesthetic and environmental to a general audience – definitely something we’ve discussed all semester. She recently proposed a collaborative district for artists, scientists, and urbanists called “City as Living Laboratory” in Long Island City. Miss lives in New York.

Two articles from The Atlantic about communicating research to the general public

Given the recent posts about mainstream media as the conduit between scientific research and the general public, I thought these two articles might be of interest to our class. “The Needless Complexity of Academic Writing” by Victoria Clayton adds another layer to the class discussions about science literacy among the general public: not only is there a lack of understanding of scientific vocabulary or certain topics but how academics (and not just scientists!) write about their work adds to the barriers to the publics’ understanding of research. The second article, “Where Science Meets Magic” by Julie Beck, contains an interview with science journalist Matt Kaplan about his book published this week, Science of the Magical: From the Holy Grail to Love Potions to Super Powers.

These two articles address two central issues explored in Science Forward: how does the general public get access to scientific research? What are some of the barriers to their understanding of scientific research? 

Clayton’s article describes the problem of “needlessly complex writing” in academia that has “become something of a protected tradition.” She quotes several academics and discusses various initiatives intended to rectify this problem. One particularly interesting issue that her article raises is the conflict between open-access resources and academics’ language – while the former grants public access to the materials (usually behind paywalls) it is researchers’ language acting as as a linguistic paywall that prevents people from understanding their work:

“Some research funders, such as National Institutes of Health and The Wellcome Trust, have mandated in recent years that studies they finance be published in open-access journals, but they’ve given little attention to ensuring those studies include accessible writing. “NIH has no policies for grantees that dictate the style of writing they use in their research publications,” a spokesperson told me in an emailed statement. “We do advise applicants about the importance of using plain language in sections of the application that, if funded, will become public on theRePORT website.”

So even if the general public has access to the latest research, how can they understand it? Is it the job of the NIH to edit submissions for more accessible language or should that be the responsibility of the researchers? 

In the interview with Matt Kaplan about his book, Julie Beck highlights his source for quotes, The Lord of the Rings rather than scientists. Kaplan’s choice serves as a rhetorical framing device for the book’s overall argument: science and magic aren’t so far apart. While Kaplan’s book seems to be more about science history than scientific research, his approach seems like an effective means to increase the general public’s interest in scientific research. Here is an excerpt from their interview:

Beck: A number of the different things that you talk about in the book I kind of thought about as “close but no cigar,” where people kind of got the effects of something right, but got the causes wrong. Like with the Egyptians’ eyeliner, which they thought had healing powers bestowed by the god Horus, and it turned out it was helping activate their immune system, but they didn’t know why. In that way, can magic kind of be a step towards scientific understanding?

….

Another example of what I was thinking about from the book is how in the 13th century, people knew that breathing in the breath of a sick person would make you sick, and so then there were the old men who were like, “Let me just breathe the breath of young girls and it’ll make me young again.” It’s a step, but just the wrong step.

Kaplan: That’s the problem with magic, because when you use mythology and magic to explain the inexplicable, you end up in situations where you do things like that.

Beck: Right, that surprises me zero percent.

Kaplan: And to some extent you do have these things giving birth to science. I think a lot of the fascination with the philosopher’s stone, this stone of immortality, and seeking to find it and distilling it from different compounds, in many ways gave birth to what eventually became chemistry.

Do books like Kaplan’s serve as an important “middle step,” translating scientific research into more accessible language for the general public? If so, would a book like Kaplan’s be more likely to stimulate interest in the history of science rather than scientific disciplines like geology, biology, and chemistry?