Don’t Be Afraid To Have Fun With Your Videos

As I’ve tried to emphasize in previous posts, scientists need to lighten up a bit when communicating science. I’m certainly guilty of being too stiff and cerebral in interviews and in my own videos. The character of Mr. Spock on Star Trek epitomizes the public’s view of the logical, emotionless scientist; Spock was always being criticized by Bones, the ship’s doctor for his Vulcan nature:

Like Spock, I’m probably not going to be able to go against my nature, but can modify how I say things on camera so that I don’t sound so much like an egghead.

As scientists, we also make the mistake of assuming that the general public will be impressed by facts, facts, and more facts. When scientists approach a video project, our inclination is to present the facts in a straightforward and, yes, logical manner. It’s drummed into us throughout our training to follow set guidelines for our research and strict formats for our science articles. So it’s difficult to break out of these molds and be creative in presenting science information. We also shy away from anything that might seem like fun for fear of being thought frivolous or, worse, ignorant. However, by not being creative and frivolous, we lose a lot of potential viewers.

Before I go any further, take a look at this video that is focused on beach litter:

Now, there are lots of videos out there about beach litter put out by various environmental organizations….and they are mostly deadly dull…. but this one gets the message across in a clever and entertaining way. And I’m guessing it was fun to make. This approach is just one way to be creative about communicating a message or educating the public about an important environmental topic. Humor is very effective. Other approaches, such as stimulating the viewer’s curiosity about how something (a field expedition, a lab experiment) will turn out also works.

I’ll discuss some of these methods in coming posts.

Don’t Be So Serious with Your Science Videos

Scientists are supposed to be serious…and most of us live up to this expectation.  However, this trait can be quite detracting and frustrating to non-scientists, unless it’s meant to be humorous as in this clip from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off:

You might succeed in using such humor, making fun of an egghead speaking on camera.  But in general, this humorous approach is already a cliche, and it would take a really fresh twist to succeed.

In general, a talking head who is pompous or pedantic is going to turn off viewers. The viewer does not want to be lectured to (they got enough of that in school). As a scientist videographer, you will have two choices of (professional) talking heads in your projects:  you or your colleagues.  Both of you likely suffer from the “stuck in their heads” syndrome.  We think too much instead of just doing or saying what comes naturally to other people.  A book called, “Don’t Be Such a Scientist”, by Randy Olson addresses this very issue as it relates to science communication.  Olson has advice for scientist communicators, spelled out in his book chapters:

1. Don’t be so cerebral

2. Don’t be so literal-minded

3. Don’t be such a poor story-teller

4. Don’t be so unlikeable

Olson makes the case in his book that although accuracy is important, it’s even more important to grab the public’s attention so that the science message is heard.  I agree, but that’s easier said than done.

Many of my scientific colleagues are, to put it bluntly, boring on camera (and I include myself in this group).  We are, to borrow Olson’s list:  too cerebral, too literal-minded, poor story-tellers, and generally unlikeable.  It’s rare to see a scientist whose personality attracts rather than repels viewers.  Think Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist and science communicator:

We can’t all be like Tyson, but we can strive to “get out of our heads” so that we can communicate like the average person.  It’s impossible to change someone’s natural demeanor (and you don’t want to try).  However, we can select our interview subjects carefully so that the message we want to convey is heard and accepted.  If you are uncomfortable on camera and this discomfort is contributing to a poor demeanor, then practice giving interviews.

I was absolutely terrible the first time I was interviewed on camera (at least it felt that way).  The interviewer kept restating my answers in a much clearer and appealing way without scientific jargon and asking, “Is this what you meant?” Although I felt like an idiot at the time, I learned a lot from the experience.  More recently, what has helped me improve my performance in front of a camera is interviewing other scientists.  Seeing how other scientists perform….which ones shine on camera and which ones are dreadful…is an eye-opening experience.  I highly recommend doing a few interviews with your colleagues and then reviewing the footage.  If I were going to teach a science videography course or workshop, that would be one of the exercises.