Categories
Reading List EN Uncategorized

RL #032: Storytelling in Crisis Communication

Storytelling is considered an effective communication method because it engages narratives, which our brains are specifically wired to understand. Similarly in science communication, storytelling translates complex concepts into accessible and comprehensible ideas. What happens, however, in situations of intense difficulties or emergency, which cause hardships, anxiety and distress? These crisis situations draw us more towards facts that ensure security rather that anecdotes that evoke empathy. This reading list focuses on answering that question by analysing how storytelling can still be an effective strategy to bring relevant information to the general public through looking at crisis situations. 

The Basics

According to Powell and Mantel, researchers writing for an online magazine ‘The Conversation’, storytelling, which is the description of ideas through narratives that evoke powerful emotions, is a powerful way to share ideas in a relatable and easily understood way. Today stories can be created in many ways also digitally through photos, videos or audio clips. Storytelling is effective because, according to Forbes, it explains factual information in a way that resonates with audiences. If a narrative resonates with you, it affects the way you remember, retain and use the information at hand.

Crisis situations

Crisis situations are, however, different. That is because these are stress inducing situations, where our brain becomes more neurotic, hurried, irrational, all of which affect our decision making and attention. Generally in this type of circumstance, it would be logical to say that in stressful situations we are more drawn to quickly accessible and short informative snippets of news rather than extensive narratives. However, is that truly so?  

According to neuroscientists Heim and Keil, today, due to the abundance of digital devices, people are forced to process information at a higher speed. Despite that, however, research has shown that our brains are built to adjust to the changing world. In fact our brain learn to focus on events, experiences or information, which are really important or meaningful to us. Our brain learns to pick out a few things that we see or hear and examine them more closely to make sense of them. These ‘few things’ will,most likely, be embedded in a story or a narrative. There are a few reasons for that. Firstly, as mentioned before, our brains are wired to be drawn to relatable narratives. Secondly, however, according to Rachel Bartlett, a writer at Shorthand online blog, crisis situation often includes an overwhelming amount of intricate details and storytelling, especially visual storytelling, makes this volumes of data easier to digest and process.

From story to action

In addition to easing our understanding of complex concepts, storytelling, as stated by Seeger and Sellnow in their book ‘Narratives of Crisis’, allows us to place current crisis circumstances in a larger context or meaning and thus in a wider perspective. This leads to improved critical thinking and situational assessment causing  deeper rooted responses, which can result in long-term social changes.  Supporting this claim is Emily Falk, professor of communication, psychology and marketing, for Los Angeles Times, who states that although storytelling alone cannot produce social transformation, it is a method of effective communication, which triggers an active response. Narratives give us a new way of seeing the world and motivate us to learn, make, react and care. Good stories share knowledge in a way that stimulates action for example it can influence policy, stimulate community action, give voices to the marginalized or motivate a well organised movement. 

Due to its abundance of formats and styles, storytelling is an effective method of communication in many different situations. This means that even in crisis situations, where our brains, due to hormonal responses, are in a much more agitated state, stories can still transmit important information, facts and figures. More so, instead of bombarding us with news, storytelling engages our senses and leads to a more active and critical response, which has the potential to bring social change. 

Categories
Reading List EN Uncategorized

RL #031: Artificial Intelligence in Science

Many tips have been shared over the past weeks and months. This one is the perfect AI for research, and the other is the perfect AI for editing texts. Ideas for the best prompts for semantics-based generative AIs are flooding Twitter, Reddit, and the like. In this Reading List, we don’t want to give tips on which AI can be used for what. For a reading list, that doesn’t make much sense at the moment, not least because of the fast pace of technological development. We also don’t want to report on how AI can have an impact on science communication. We already did that last summer in Reading List #021. Rather, we have collected a few texts on thoughts about how AI could change science in the coming years. Enjoy reading!

Artificial intelligence with an overview

One of the biggest challenges of science, regardless of discipline, is keeping up with the flood of articles. 70,000 publications deal with the protein p53, according to the think tank Enago. This is the first I’ve heard of it today. Apparently, it is relevant for the early detection of tumors. In 1993, it was voted “Molecule of the Year”. On the occasion of this anniversary, an AI of my choice finds the following review: “The first 30 years of p53: growing ever more complex” by Arnold J Levine and Moshe Oren (paywall). In fact, there are now a number of tools that claim to find articles and present them in their respective publication context. The start has been made.

Disruptive Artificial Intelligence

With the newly gained overview, the quality of results and outcomes can also be reclassified. And this also applies outside of science. In an interview with Digitale Welt, Prof. Mario Trapp, director of the Fraunhofer Institute for Cognitive Systems IKS, remarks: “Even if you can still have the results of AI checked for plausibility by doctors today, this will hardly be possible in the future because of the increasing complexity.” The choice of words is exciting: Trained people can still check the plausibility of results. This will probably no longer be possible for a long time.

As a new key technology with a broad spectrum of applications (even if all references and points of reference so far point to medicine), universities are now facing investment hype for the third time since the 1950s and 1970s. This time, multidisciplinary research in step with action (i.e. industry) and politics is particularly in demand. At least that is the argument of Y. K Dwivedi et al. in an opinion paper published in the International Journal of Information Management. More applied, and with a focus on the extent to which the greatly altered interests brought about by AI interact with media, industry, and research, G. Berman, K. Williams, and S. Michalska argue in their study that research in the field of artificial intelligence functions differently than in other fields.

Proactive Artificial Objectivity

AIs help to keep track of things, they flush new money into the universities’ coffers. Overwhelmed, I return to medicine and to an article from 2018. On the Science Blog – Kaleidoscope for Science, Norbert Bischofberger wrote a fascinating article entitled “With artificial intelligence to a proactive medicine? A question that applies in a modified form to all disciplines today?

At that time, Bischofberger concluded that we might soon no longer “react” but proactively take care of ourselves. Five years later, knowledge production could soon be taken proactively into the hands of AIs. The question is whether an objective understanding of science will play into our hands. We will see.

Categories
Reading List EN Uncategorized

RL #030: Beyond Comparing Numbers: Qualitative Research Assessment 

It can be argued well and lengthy about what is appropriate when it comes to evaluating the relevance, quality and significance of research work and making it measurable. The selected good reads encompass a range of perspectives, including open access repositories, research impact assessment, research evaluation projects, comprehensive assessment methods, and research grant evaluation. 

For once, let’s not start with theory work, but in a very practical way. The “Your Impact” research guide by the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) offers comprehensive information on evaluating research impact. It covers various metrics, tools, and methodologies to assess the societal, academic, and economic impacts of research. This guide provides practical advice to researchers, librarians, and administrators on navigating the complex landscape of research evaluation, empowering them to demonstrate the value and significance of their work.

Choose your methods wisely – they might be assessed

Of course, the choice of method always influences the results. And this also applies to the methods used to measure the impact of science. A recent project on evaluating research conducted by RAND Europe aims to improve understanding and methodologies for assessing research quality and impact. Their website offers insights into ongoing projects, publications, and tools related to research evaluation. RAND Europe’s expertise in research evaluation provides valuable insights for policymakers, funding agencies, and research institutions seeking to enhance evaluation practices and inform evidence-based decision-making.

If you are looking for a clear and theoretically sound introduction to the topic of research evaluation, Evaluating Research in Context: A Method for Comprehensive Assessment by Jack Spaapen, Huub Dijstelbloem and Frank Wamelink from 2007 is recommended. The focus is on one thing, as the title suggests: Context. The right context is important if not only publications in journals and their ranking values are to be counted. Contextual consideration is crucial in science impact assessment. Research takes place within diverse fields, each with its own objectives, methodologies, and timelines. Therefore, relying solely on universal indicators may oversimplify the evaluation process and fail to capture the nuances of different disciplines. By accounting for the contextual aspects, such as field-specific metrics, geographic factors, and research goals, a more accurate assessment of impact can be achieved.

Assessment of research should recognise diversity of outputs, practices and activities

At Oikoplus, we work in a number of projects funded or co-funded by Horizon Europe, the European Union’s research and innovation program. This raises a very practical question: How does the EU measure the impact of the projects it (co-)funds? The EU Commission calls its new impact monitoring framework ‘Key Impact Pathways’. A recent working document provides an insight into the various indicators used by the EU Commission to evaluate projects.

Science impact assessment is essential for evaluating the broader influence and value of research.

When it comes to evaluation and measurability, it is obvious to operationalize success in numbers. However, there is no scheme for this operationalization that can represent the different types of scientific practice in a comparable way. Researchers are aware of this. One answer to the problem is the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA). Hundreds of universities, institutes, and scientific institutions have already joined the Coalition, united by the vision “that the assessment of research, researchers and research organisations recognises the diverse outputs, practices and activities that maximise the quality and impact of research. This requires basing assessment primarily on qualitative judgement, for which peer review is central, supported by responsible use of quantitative indicators.”

Research assessment should always consider the indicators used and the specific context of the research being assessed. By adopting a comprehensive and contextual approach to impact assessment, stakeholders can gain a more nuanced understanding of research outcomes, encourage diverse research pathways, and make informed decisions to support the advancement of science and its positive societal impact.

Categories
Reading List EN Uncategorized

RL #029: Cartography as a Place of Exchange Between Citizens and Experts

The ability to understand one’s immediate surroundings has always been an extremely important skill. For this reason, humanity has spent thousands of years developing and perfecting the craft of representing spatial information including routes or landforms. In today’s age of modern technology, however, the amount and variety of information that needs to be mapped are increasing. Nowadays the ability to have a grasp on our surroundings is proving more complex. This reading list will therefore explore how cartography turns out to be useful to facilitate knowledge exchanges and how it can serve as a vehicle for critical thinking.

Explaining Cartography

Cartography is the practice of map-making. Originally cartographers graphically represented spatial or geographical data but are now faced with having to translate diverse figures from multiple sensors and multiple origins. According to Elik Eizenberg in Forbes technology online magazine, we find ourselves swimming in data (and should care about it). As we can’t fully harness all data, the data scientists’ continuation of collecting new data, slowly loses meaning. Mapping, Georg Gartner argues in an article for Ersi, the global leader in geographic information systems, bridges between human users and all this data. It uses visualization to make science approachable to the public, fully unleashing its potential. 

Point cloud of slope failures in Sensuikyo Valley by LIDAR a tool in modern 3d cartography. Source: https://www.unearthlabs.com/blogs/modern-cartography

From Knowledge Reception to Knowledge Exchange

Empowering citizens to make informed decisions can also have another effect, namely mutual information exchange. Originally cartographers collect data from various measuring tools such as aerial photographs, remote sensing, field observations, or coordinate lists. This data, however, as mentioned by Horizon 2020-funded WeObserve, has a scarce update date due to increased costs and timely data validation procedures. Today, considering the increased complexity of data, cartographers also turn to alternative sources such as citizens.

Interactive exploration of good and bad governments worldwide by GOV DNA. Source: https://govdna.sudox.nl/#layout/geo/country/WRL/x/32/y/5/z/8/a/0
Interactive exploration of good and bad governments worldwide by GOV DNA. Source: https://govdna.sudox.nl/#layout/geo/country/WRL/x/32/y/5/z/8/a/0
Interactive exploration of good and bad governments worldwide by GOV DNA. Source: https://govdna.sudox.nl/#layout/geo/country/WRL/x/32/y/5/z/8/a/0

According to Caroline Anstey for The New York Times, this new shift towards crowdsourcing information is immensely useful to cartography. Citizens provide both quantitative, but also qualitative data often omitted by cartographers. The citizens’ expertise comes from living in one place for a prolonged period of time. Changes in demographics, environment, human relations, or even housing habits are useful to mapping projects as they can translate into policies or planning decisions. To build trust underlying this exchange, cartographers should provide citizens with clear and understandable information.  

Cartography as a Vehicle for Critical Thinking

According to Sukhmani Mantel for The Conversation, visually mapping relations allows information to engage multiple senses and become relevant to daily life. And indeed, citizens are able to handle novel concepts with an extensive social and cross-cultural understanding. This is what Aleks Buczkowski explains in his piece written for GeoAwesome, the world’s largest geospatial community.

Essentially, Stevenson et al., from Stockholm Environment Institute, claim in an SEI Brief about extreme citizen science approaches in digital mapping, that people from mapping practices, no matter their education level, gain the ability to understand the developing world. This supports their chances to better participate in it also on a more general level: previously excluded groups become aware of how they can co-create and get involved. They now contribute to scientific research, so-called citizen science.

Forensic architecture embedded photographs and videos to reconstruct the story of a single battle during 2014 Gaza War
Forensic architecture embedded photographs and videos to reconstruct the story of a single battle during 2014 Gaza War. Source: https://www.gold.ac.uk/news/forensic-architecture-ica/

As stated by Fraisl, Heyl, and Hager, researchers at Institute for Applied System Analysis, citizen science is important for the democratization of the scientific field. At the same time, it plays a role in empowering citizens to make informed decisions about their surroundings. This way, as mentioned by Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, authoritative power becomes decentralized and decision-makers can be held accountable for their actions.

Conclusion

Obtaining accurate cartographic data through crowdsourcing is something that is in its early stages, but is increasingly practiced. Especially because now citizens have increasingly more opportunities to use tools, which give them access to global data. On an entrepreneurial scale, this is already taking place. The Domino-E project, which focuses on developing a federation layer optimising the availability of Earth observation data, builds on interoperability and knowledge sharing. Knowledge sharing generates knowledge creation, which is why it is important for cartographers to bet for information exchange as it benefits both them and citizens equally.

Categories
Reading List EN

RL #028: In Tech we trust, or not?

In our projects at Oikoplus, we communicate science and research. They often involve new technologies, and often the promise that their use will tackle major challenges of our time. Technology solves problems. After all, that’s what it’s developed for. But should we really rely on new tech?

In our projects at Oikoplus, we communicate science and research. They often involve new technologies, and often the promise that their use will tackle major challenges of our time. Technology solves problems. After all, that’s what it’s developed for. But should we really rely on new tech? Just yesterday, the new climate report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was released and once more it warns of drastic climate change consequences that are only getting worse. Can inventions really be the key in the fight against climate change? After all, greenhouse gas emissions are themselves a consequence of industrialized processes that were once considered technological innovations.

Perhaps the optimistic view of the technological future merely distracts us from the fact that the solution to the problem could have taken place long ago or in the present? And perhaps the real solution to the problem in many areas is less technology rather than more? Does techno-optimism often end up being greenwashing? The Financial Times Techtonic Podcast explores these questions in an episode from November 2022 that is well worth listening to.

This is what Midjourney AI “imagines” ,green tech helping to tackle climate crisis’ to look like.

Techno-optimism, over-optimism and powerful men

Also in November 2022, Elizabeth Zhu took on the topic of tech-optimism in an opinion piece on stanforddaily.com, a news portal run by students at Standord University. The university in Palo Alto, California, is considered the higher education campus of Silicon Valley. The region isn’t exactly known for being dismissive of future technology. Zhu notes that even in the wake of scandals such as data leaks or the spread of Russian disinformation, companies like Facebook parent Meta are perceived as attractive employers with a grand vision of human connectivity. According to Zhu, this optimistic view of technology leads to a specific problem: „When more people rely on the ‘all-in-one’ power of carbon sucking technologies or cloud-brightening initiatives, systemic causes of climate change such as fossil fuel mining and pollution are overlooked.”

Are technological solutions systematically used as a distraction from the causes of problems? A good introduction to this question is provided by the text “Over-Optimism in Technology and the Promotion of the Powerful Man” by Sofia Ribeiro and Viriato Soromenho-Marques, who conduct research at the University of Lisbon. They use the term technowashing in analogy to greenwashing. In this case, political actors deliberately direct all social hope in the direction of technology and the natural sciences in order to give the impression that solutions are already being worked on. It is precisely this technowashing that makes it possible to postpone the urgency of robust, integrated, ethical, equitable, and multidisciplinary measures and policies.

And this is another version of the same prompt using Midjourney AI.

Techno-solutionism vs. techno-criticism

Another neat term, techno-solutionism, is used by Harry Surden in a symposium article in the Yale Journal of Regulation. Surden notes that techno-soultionism tends to glorify technologies such as artificial intelligence and unrealistically portray them as simple solutions to the much more complex, systemic problems in society. At the same time, however, techno-criticism tends to overemphasize the negative aspects of technologies, either by focusing excessively on potential future problems that may-or may not-occur, or by disproportionately emphasizing the borderline cases where a technology is problematic while overlooking other areas where it may incrementally bring significant societal improvements.

At Oikoplus, in all our project communication we try not to pretend that the projects provide conclusive answers to pressing questions. After all, each of our projects is always just one of many contributions to the scientific treatment of major challenges. We are convinced that technology can always make a decisive contribution. But in the end, it is people who use technology. That’s why the big answers lie in human behavior, not in the technology itself. This is true not only in the future, but also in the present.

Categories
Reading List EN

RL #027: Creating Brochures and Flyers ‒ a Useful Addition to the Communication Toolkit?

Waaahh! Next week already we should be on the way. Toulouse is the destination. France. And we are in charge of the exhibition booth. Now, five minutes before departure, project brochures are to be printed. So in this Reading List, we’ll look into the question of whether and how it still makes sense to create flyers and brochures.

Please take with you: Flyers for eternity

The success of the Internet could be seen as having replaced a wide variety of print media over the past few decades. On social media, customers can be approached, informed, and acquired quite easily. At least that’s true for those hip industries that flood our social media feeds: Morning Routine, Home Improvement, Crypto, and Travel. Brochures and flyers that also have a higher environmental footprint ‒ do we still need that?

Flyer from car show on table
Photo by Ejov Igor: https://www.pexels.com/photo/a-autosalon-brochure-on-brown-surface-14425192/

Topics that are less lifestyle-oriented or that are sensitive in their content have a much more difficult time in affirmative social media environments dominated by visual content. An application to participate in cancer studies would be an example of this. Or projects that address energy poverty (e.g. EnergyMeasures). Highly specialized audiences also continue to be receptive to analog formats such as brochures and flyers. However, both types of print have real advantages. In this context, the print format of flyers and brochures has concrete advantages. In Forbes magazine in “Paper Beats Digital In Many Ways, According to Neuroscience,” Roger Dooley argues that print formats with little text increase brand recognition much more sustainably than digital counterparts.

As with any communication product, success with brochures and flyers depends on target-group-optimized content, format, and call to action. Special attention should be paid to interoperability. On her blog, author and writing coach Annika Lamer (in German only) elaborates that flyers and brochures act in tandem with websites: namely, in most cases, the interaction that follows the flyer takes place online. Flyers and brochures are a bridge to the website or, even better, a tailored offer on their website.

Giving structure to brochures: from handouts to folded flyers to squares

When developing the flyer, we do not classically start with the text. We start with the structure. Actually, we start with layout and structure, and text. All together. First, they determine the rough scope, then choose the format, and then design the text. Each page in the flyer gets a topic. Proposal for three folds with six pages: a title page, a contact page, three pages for three contents, and one page for extra content. No theme gets two pages. Consistency is key. The very descriptive graphic about this, given here, can be found in Annika Lamer’s blog post.

Brochure division according to Annika Lamer.
Annika Lamer, 2016. Url: https://www.annika-lamer.de/so-entwickeln-sie-einen-starken-flyer/lamer_flyer-aufteilung/

The texts themselves should be short. Short does not mean that everything should be shortened. It means that you limit yourself and present only the most popular or exceptional of their achievements and results. We have written about the importance of brevity in a previous post. You got 8 seconds only!

Things that must be included in the flyer? Logo, publisher (incl. web address), texts structured by crisp headlines and subheadings, images (and or infographics). If you have any, do not forget seals, sponsors, or references, e.g. of legal nature. We reached the design.

Brochure design: from content to images to infographics

Moving on from the target group to the general design. Many people skim-read and discard flyers or brochures in one motion. Flyers and brochures that work with loads of text and photographs disappear even faster in the trash can than brochures with schematic infographics. This is at least, what Terabe et al. argue for in “The Impact of Flyer with Infographics on Public Awareness and Interest to Transportation Project.” Picture Superiority has been around for a long time ‒ we could write about Infographics Superiority in the next Reading List. An exciting topic.

Different brochures on one table
Foto von RODNAE Productions: https://www.pexels.com/de-de/foto/information-daten-flyer-ein-haus-kaufen-8292889/

Good examples and hands-on instructions for creating your brochures and flyers, with and without infographics, abound. At OIKOPLUS, we like to get inspiration, especially when things need to be done quickly. For example, Canva or Envato. For projects and events in the field of art and culture, Visme offers great inspiration. That’s probably how we’ll do it for the next one of our brochures. Fortunately, a week is longer than 5 minutes.

Categories
Reading List EN

RL #026: Communicating Controversial Research

On difficult topics, moral questions, research ethics and conflicts of interest in science communication.

In science, there are subject areas that are teeming with communication pitfalls. Topics that are controversial in society, research that uses controversial methods and technologies with uncertain consequences. They require sensitivity and caution when it comes to communicating their results in an understandable and accessible way to a large and public audience. Ethical questions are often the subject of intense debate, because widespread social values and morals are challenged. Examples of such research topics are genetic engineering, animal experiments in the life sciences or aspects of gender studies in humanities.

Many scientists working in such fields know this. They communicate cautiously and do not seek the great publicity to present their work and have it discussed publicly. Because where there is public discussion, there is a threat not only of objective and professional criticism, but also of shitstorms. Researchers who encounter criticism from outside their professional bubble usually feel misunderstood. And they are often not so wrong. Current studies show: People who have strong opinions on controversial research topics often rate their knowledge of these topics higher than it actually is.

Photo by Zuzana Ruttkayova: https://www.pexels.com/photo/brown-wooden-beach-dock-under-cloudy-sky-7225642/

Oh Lord, please don’t let me be misunderstood

A researcher involved in one of the projects in which Oikoplus is a partner responsible for science communication and dissemination expressed this in an email just recently: „Our research requires that we are very careful with the information that is out there. I would like to avoid a situation of messaging getting misunderstood or misexplained. I could think of a gazillion ways this could go wrong in a spur of the moment.” Well – it’s hard to completely rule out the possibility of communication being misunderstood.

At the very least, however, there is a very simple rule that can be followed if, because of the sensitivity of a topic, you attach great importance to remaining factually correct and offering as little room for interpretation as possible: Avoid humour, especially in social media. Good humour is the most difficult discipline of entertainment, and most punchlines do not come without collateral damage, without people feeling hit and hurt. Therefore, science communication usually has to be serious, polite and correct. Or else, one deliberately chooses the humorous path, even if it may be risky. Kelleigh Greene has written about humour in science communication for the Scientia blog. She argues that humour and science communication indeed do go together.

No fear of the target audience

Caution is required when communicating sensitive issues. However, one should not completely subject one’s communication to caution and avoid discourse. Science can withstand criticism. However, this does not mean that each individual scientist must be able to withstand criticism. What we always tell our partners in science: Don’t panic! The loudest critics in the discourse are rarely representative of the public as a whole. And sometimes particularly loud criticism belies quiet agreement. Using the CRISPR/Cas9 technology as a case, communication researchers at the University of Twente in the Netherlands investigated the different perspectives within the Dutch public on this relatively new genetic engineering method. The communication researchers used the Q method, in which statements from study participants (here n=30) are ranked according to the degree of agreement. It turned out that the participants were generally open and optimistic about the CRISPR/Cas9 technology.

Photo by Edward Jenner: https://www.pexels.com/photo/photo-of-a-person-s-hands-holding-a-petri-dish-with-blue-liquid-4031369/

Becoming aware of one’s own role

This may make many scientists researching gene editing optimistic. In any case, it helps researchers to think about the target groups of their science communication. To do this, it’s a good idea to work together with communications experts. A study conducted by the Julius Kühn Institute in Quedlinburg, Germany, shows what such cooperation can look like. The geneticists researching there joined forces with communication scientists from Wageningen University in the Netherlands. The aim was to develop concrete recommendations for communication on the topic of genetic modification. Part of the result: Trust in science is high, and scientists are trusted to take safety, transparency and sustainability seriously. Therefore, scientists working on topics that are contentious should not hide. They are the ones who can contribute expertise. That’s what they are there for, you could say.

Does expertise automatically lead to a conflict of interest?

But not everyone sees it that way. In some debates, the expertise of researchers is interpreted as a conflict of interest: If, for example, female geneticists are in favour of relaxing the regulation of the use of genetic engineering, it is quickly said: how could female geneticists, of all people, be against this? An article by philosopher Alexander Christian in Frontiers deals with such possible conflicts of interest, using the CRISPR/Cas9 debate as an example.

Cutting through discursive pitfalls is not easy. Sometimes it is simply impossible. But transparency and openness, can hardly hurt to enable the broadest and most open discussion about research and its results. At Oikoplus, we support researchers in explaining their work and making it accessible. We always advise them not to hide in the process.

Categories
Reading List EN

RL #025: ,Letters Like Sand on the Sea’

Over the next two months, we are to write three communication strategies. Three potential wastelands of letters meant to form the backbone of the communication work. They are supposed to be shaped and aligned as castles on the sea. Castles of communication that take into account water and shells, for which we need elaborate equipment like shovels and buckets. Castles that may collapse over time and be rebuilt because Elon is crashing Twitter. In this Reading List, I write about the importance of a strong communication strategy in the context of knowledge projects.

Simple communication

Communication is not that complex. In principle – and most advisors agree on this – it is about conveying a message that is as consistent as possible to people who are affected in different ways. Communication should be uniform, coherent and free of contradictions. Most people – and this applies to science projects as much as to other contexts – do not need to know everything. They may not even want to know everything. Often they do not have the necessary resources. They are also interested in completely different topics. Maybe communication is not that simple after all. To achieve our goals, we need comprehensibility and brevity. We need to arouse curiosity and be prepared to leave our supposed comfort zone again and again. We have already written about all this. But so far without a strategy.

Strategy; a term from warfare

Bild von Willi Heidelbach auf Pixabay

The concept of strategy is a military one. Strategies are well thought out and well planned. They have clear objectives and are based on experience and data. In a relevant blog post for the workflow organiser Asana, Sarah Laoyan refers to Sun Tzu’s The Art of War. The concept of strategy, according to Tzu, is opposed to that of tactics. It refers to individual measures that become necessary in order to achieve goals. Writing 12 SEO-optimised articles, generating 10 high-quality backlinks, and conducting a website audit to fix SEO errors. For Jesse Sumrak of Foundr, these are tactics, not strategies. For ethnographer and Marxist Michel de Certeau, strategies and tactics are linked to power, place and sovereignty. In The Practice of Everyday Life, de Certeau writes:

I call a strategy the calculation (or manipulation) of power
relationships that becomes possible as soon as a subject with will and power can be isolated. It postulates a place that can be delimited as its own and serve as the base from which relations with an exteriority composed of targets or threats can be managed.

[…]

By contrast with a strategy, a tactic is a calculated action determined by the absence of a proper locus. No delimitation of an exteriority, then, provides it with the condition necessary for autonomy. The space of a tactic is the space of the other. Thus it must play on and with a terrain imposed on it and organized by the law of a foreign power.

de Certeau, Michel. 2005. “The Practice of Everyday Life. ‘Making do’: uses and tactics.”, In: Spiegel, Gabrielle, M. “Practicing History. New Directions in Historical Writing and the Linguisitc Turn”, pp. 218-219.

Wenn wir de Certreau ernst nehmen, dann bedeutet das, sich der eigenen Mittel und Hoheit bewusst zu werden und zu sein.

Strategic communication

A comprehensive and good communication strategy embraces this. It knows the resources we have; it understands when the beach commissioner is coming with the excavator. It includes a message, target groups, channels, and methods for evaluating and gathering feedback. Because all intentions, as well as contingencies, come together in the communication strategy, and because decisions are made in a strategy at the very beginning of a project, Roger L. Martin in the Harvard Business Review refuses to write about an implementation decoupled from strategy. For him strategy is implementation. And implementation starts with enabling all those involved to participate in the communication. We are back to de Certeau. It is about hosting those places of communication over which we have and could have sovereignty. And it is about asking the dredging beach commissioner to reprieve our sandcastle.

Locating strategy

Image by Pexels from Pixabay 

Back to the letters and the sand by the sea. A communication strategy built too close to the water and too close to the entrances to the beach is likelier to collapse. It is a matter of finding or even creating a place that allows us to react even when the unexpected happens. It is about developing tactics we can use when the situation demands it. And it’s about giving communication a shared identity that stays with us for months and years. That is what a successful communication strategy does.

Categories
Reading List EN

RL #024: Hands-on: Gamification in Archeo-Tourism

This Oikoplus Reading List is not about a specific issue in the field of Science Communication and Research Dissemination, for once. This Oikoplus Reading List is about one of our own projects.

In the past two years we have learned a lot about archaeology through the participation of our association Sustainication e.V. (a quasi subsidary of Oikoplus) in the Interreg project ArcheoDanube. And about the exciting challenge of using archaeology to develop sustainable tourism concepts. 

After two and a half intensive project years, ArcheoDanube will come to an end in 2022. In mid-November, the Closing Conference took place in the Slovenian city of Ptuj. The different institutions involved in the project from 11 countries of the Danube Region presented the results of the project. These include not only Guidelines for Local Archeo Plans as a vehicle for sustainable archeotourism, but also concrete local pilot actions in which the concept of Archaeological Parks was and will be tested.

But what does ArcheoDanube have to do with science communication and Oikoplus? Well … plenty. Because embedding archaeology in tourism concepts requires the commmunication of research results – adapted to a specific place and specific target groups. The Sustainication/Oikoplus team was able to contribute to the project not only by writing an e-handbook on archaeological site management, but also by participating in three think tank workshops evaluating Local Action Plans in Szombathely (HU), Pilsen (CZ) and X (HR). 

Digital Tools for ArcheoTourism Gamification

And: We have developed a mobile app. The app ArcheoTales for Android and iOS, which was developed together with the Graz-based company Softwaregärtner, allows visitors to archaeological sites and museums to be sent on digital scavenger hunts. This allows cultural tourism providers and operators of heritage sites to offer didactically and playfully prepared content to different target groups. And visitors can experience the exhibition in the form of a puzzle game at their own, individual pace. Here, visitors communicate via mobile app with fictional characters in a mass-ger interface. 

Another digital tool developed in the ArcheoDanube project is Yesterday-Today-Tomorrow. It is specifically aimed at cities and municipalities that have cultural heritage and archaeological sites and are looking for assistance in creating a tourism concept in the form of an archeopark. 

In the ArcheoTales project, we have been able to learn an immense amount about archaeology and the cultural history of the Danube region, visit wonderful places with cultural tourism treasures, and meet fantastic colleagues from 11 countries. In the process, we made new friends and learned what good science communication can do in a field that was completely new to us – and how much fun it is to do it.

Categories
Reading List EN

RL #023: To the point: presenting scientific content

July and September are conference months in Europe. During the day, the sun is pleasantly high and outdoor and indoor areas can be used without much extra effort. The mood is good, almost exuberant. At most universities, teaching has either just ended or not yet begun. It is holiday time and depending on the place and interest, some add 2-3 days to the conference. There are others who come sooner. Besides the pleasant setting, however, conferences are also those moments in a scientific career when you need to generate attention for yourself and your scientific work. In a highly fluid context, you get to know your closest allies, your co-authors, and future superiors. In order to do this, however, you have to convince them with your ideas. And that means, above all, getting to the point. This is exactly what this reading list is about.

Photo by Mikael Kristenson on Unsplash

Getting to the point: English as a twofold barrier

To get to the point means first of all to leave out everything unnecessary. No details but only what is most important for your argument should be articulated. Synonyms are ‘to say something clearly’, ‘to be frank’, ‘not to hide something’, ‘to be clear’, and ‘to express yourself unambiguously’. Not that easy when much of the communication is in a foreign language. In Nature’s career column, Roey Elnathan 2021 (paywall) called for broad-based mentoring programs for aspiring and experienced scientists who publish in foreign languages. According to Elnathan’s, precision and accuracy cannot be achieved otherwise.

But English is only the current lingua franca of science. In the video podcast Languages in Science by MetodieStrategie, Timothy E.L Douglas explains that we have already experienced Latin, German, and French as scientific languages since the 17th century. He speaks for the European-Western and international science community. Most recently, Douglas says, science has become more linguistically diverse again.

Photo by Joshua Hoehne on Unsplash

Another important point Douglas makes in the podcast concerns the target audience. And here, it seems, native English speakers often find it most difficult to adapt their own language skills to the community. As with writing readable academic texts, knowing your listeners and readers is a prerequisite. They define the framework for the infamous point to which we should bring our argumentation. Complaining at a high level?

I am designing a presentation. So what should be brought to the point?

In short: everything! The introduction, your research question, and, if available, your hypotheses. The methodology. The visual material and your argumentation. No detail that is not needed, no subordinate clause too much. Short sentences delivered at speaking speed, not reading speed, with pauses for breath. Because many present their arguments in combination with text, images, and visualized data, here a reminder: get to the point!

First of all, it should be noted that diagrams, graphs, and also photographs are permissible for communicating knowledge and content within peer groups. At least, that is what Laura Perini argues in Visual Representations and Confirmation (paywall). The images and visual representations that Perini classifies as for the science community are thus unlike the images representing science that the Max Plank Society, for example, offers for sale. They have no point, but aesthetic value? Again, the question of the listeners applies. A picture to trace the history and context, a map to locate, and a graph to show statistical distributions. To keep the latter clear, here are a few meaningful visualizations and the University of York’s DIY Wiki.

Photo by David Pisnoy on Unsplash

Focus on your particular interest: Get feedback, collect ideas and suggestions, forge alliances

Last but not least a tip; a suggestion. After my own first experience on the conference floor, I quickly realized that I sometimes don’t get the kind of feedback I would need. But if your presentation was an argument to the point, then you can expect the same from your listeners. Give them a question to ask. Share what has been on your mind since your last learning and invite them to think along with you. Your own needs should be brought to the point as well. Because only when you return from your conferences with good discussions in your pockets will you find the motivation for preparing for the upcoming conference summer.