Category Archives: Communicating with a Diverse Audience

Use Video to Recruit Research Participants

Posted on by

Quite a few researchers depend on volunteers—who participate as subjects of a study or who help in the collection of data. If you are a scientist or graduate student in need of volunteers, you may have found it difficult to find and recruit people to participate in your study. Perhaps you advertised your study online or in a local paper and got little response. Or maybe you posted information on a website that lists clinical trials (needing volunteers to serve as study subjects) or research projects (needing observers/recorders of plants, animals, and the environment). On such sites, a potential volunteer can search for a topic of interest and then sign up for one of the studies. Many of these sites, however, offer only brief text descriptions of the research project, which often do not provide much insight about what the volunteer can expect or why the research is being done.

A way to make your study stand out and attract suitable volunteers is to create a brief video showing prospective volunteers what they will experience, what they might learn by participating, and how their contribution will help advance science. The video can be posted on a video-sharing site where people searching for information about a topic are more likely to find it. The video can be linked to the project website where someone can find out more about it and perhaps volunteer to participate in the study.

For example, here is a video about a study that does a great job of not only explaining the significance of the work, it shows the sampling procedure that a volunteer subject would experience:

I’m not crazy about the title, but it seemed to attract a lot of attention. You can read more about the study (or maybe volunteer?) here. This study of facial mites is part of a larger effort called Your Wildlife, which features citizen science and science education projects focused on familiar landscapes—from our own skin to our backyards.

 

Marmosets Find Instructional Video Useful

Posted on by

OK, I know you’re sick of me yammering on about the value of video in science communication and what a great tool it is in teaching others how to perform a scientific technique. However, I could not resist pointing out a recent study that showed wild marmosets learning how to open a box to get a food reward—by, you guessed it, watching a methods video!

Tina Gunhold, a cognitive biology researcher at the University of Vienna, filmed captive marmosets retrieving a piece of food from a clear plastic box (representing an artificial fruit) and created a video featuring their techniques for gaining access to the food reward. She and coauthors then set up the box in the field (Brazil) along with a laptop showing the video of laboratory marmosets lifting a lid or opening a drawer to get at the food. The researchers then filmed wild marmosets (108 in all) who either saw the instructional video or served as controls (saw only a static image of a marmoset standing next to the box).

Only twelve of the wild marmosets were able to open the box and get the food. However, of this group, eleven had watched the instructional video and only one of the controls figured it out on her own. The choice of technique by the successful participants did not appear to be random but was predominately the method they saw in the video. Also, the instructional video group showed more attempts at manipulation of the box than did the control group. The researchers described their findings in the journal Biology Letters (Gunhold, T., Whiten, A. & Bugnyar, T. Biol. Lett. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2014.0439 (2014)).

The video below shows one group of wild marmosets investigating the experimental setup and their response (Video Credit: Tina Gunhold) (if you cannot see the video player window on your device, you can watch the video here):

The authors conclude: “To our knowledge, this is the first study that used video demonstrations in the wild and demonstrated the potent force of social learning, even from unfamiliar conspecifics, under field conditions.”

Scientist videographers, take note.

Using Video to Crowdfund Scientific Research

Posted on by

Are you like a lot of scientists who are struggling to fund your research or find collaborators to share ideas and costs? If you are, then you might be interested in new platforms that bring researchers together with fellow scientists, science enthusiasts, and potential sponsors.

One such platform is Thinkable, where people can learn, track, and fund science topics that are specifically interesting to them. Scientists create a profile on Thinkable and then upload a brief video (3 minutes max) describing a new idea for a study, a recent paper, a conference presentation, or just a tour of their laboratory. The idea is to have an online meeting place where scientists can interact directly with other people who are interested in their area of research.

I was contacted recently by Ben McNeil, one of the founders of Thinkable, who is a proponent of video as a means of science communication. He had seen my blog and some of my videos and decided to get in touch. We had a great Skype conversation about Thinkable and about the use of video by scientists to connect with other researchers and especially as a means to solicit crowdfunding. Ben wrote a complimentary blog post about me and my efforts in teaching videography to scientists. I’m hoping to meet up with him and colleagues next year when I visit Australia to share ideas.

How Does It Work? Visitors to the Thinkable site can follow a scientist or a specific project by becoming a fan. A prospective student interested in a particular field, for example, might follow an established researcher and learn more about the projects they are currently working on. Through the video snapshots, potential collaborators can see where their respective research areas overlap and perhaps embark on a joint project. Or a nature lover may want to support research on deserts, rainforests, or coral reefs—wherever their specific interest lies. Fans receive updates from the research they have chosen to follow.

Someone can become a sponsor with a donation of as little as $1. Sponsors receive in return more in-depth information and updates about the specific research project they support. They can learn first-hand about an exciting area of research—how it is conducted or how the findings will benefit society. They can follow the progress of the researcher as s/he conducts experiments and interprets the results.

I set up a profile on Thinkable to test it out and uploaded a couple of videos to see how that worked. Setting up a profile is very easy and fast, as is uploading videos. You just list a few facts about yourself, a brief bio, and contact information. There are then three areas for interaction. In “my ideas”, a researcher uploads a video (or image) to introduce a campaign, a poster, a paper, or a talk. You can add as many “ideas” as you like, but are restricted in terms of how much you can say or show about each one. A campaign is specifically used to solicit support for a research project. Here, a researcher provides a brief text description of the proposed project and explains why it is innovative, as well as a short video “pitch”. In “my sponsorships”, you have the option of allowing people to donate or sponsor your research through Thinkable; you may also choose to decline this option and only showcase your research. In “my thinkers”, you select other Thinkable researchers to follow. It took me about 20 minutes to set up a profile and upload a couple of videos. The interface was easy to navigate, and the finished feed is visually attractive.

There are several examples of campaigns on the Thinkable landing page where you can get a better idea of how other researchers are using video to pitch their ideas.

Why Video? Thinkable founders have focused on video as an effective medium for sharing science information. Researchers are encouraged to use video snapshots to connect with fellow scientists, students, and science enthusiasts. Of course, I’m all in favor of video as a medium to share science information and also think that this approach lends itself well to crowdfunding efforts. Video snapshots force a scientist to pare their message down to the core idea behind their proposed project and to make their case concisely and convincingly. I find that many proposals fail because the PI gets bogged down in too much detail and neglects to state a single, clear goal and anticipated outcome. I think that making a three-minute video can help a proposer find and articulate that message. Potential supporters, especially the general public, will likely appreciate the video approach, as opposed to a lot of text.

In addition to raising funds, a scientist can showcase their research publications with brief videos on Thinkable, which are then discoverable by search engines. A video on a sharing platform such as Thinkable is freely accessible, in contrast to a journal article, which is likely behind a paywall. So someone without a journal subscription can still learn about your work by watching a video. But such visual snapshots are more than just a way to make one’s work more visible online. As I’ve explained in previous posts, videos allow authors to explain their work in ways they cannot with the journal article. Video can enrich a technical article and encourage the reader/viewer to explore the topic further.

The video format also does not violate copyright restrictions typically imposed by science journal publishers but instead allows the scientist to visually share important insights from their work. Quite a few authors infringe copyright law by posting the journal-formatted pdf on their websites or on other repositories. Some are unaware that they are violating copyright, whereas others do it knowingly and assume they won’t be challenged. A better approach is to produce a separate information product that simply displays the essence of the work in an easily accessible and understandable format—such as video. When posted online, these visual products serve as pointers to the original publication hosted on a journal’s website. You own the copyright to the video since you’ve created it using your own media and data from your publication (as author you retain intellectual property rights to your data and any contents of a publication).

Filling a Need. Although other video-sharing platforms such as YouTube are currently where many scientists are posting their videos, there is a need for dedicated platforms where researchers can share information and interact with science information consumers and potential sponsors. I think there will be more platforms like Thinkable in the future, and many will be designed around video to solicit funding or to display scientific information. Science information consumers and sponsors will increasingly expect media-rich content on such sites, and scientists must be prepared to provide it.

Why Researchers Should Interact With The Public

Posted on by

Scientists usually have a strong opinion about directly sharing their work with the public. Some think it is not only a good idea but essential for scientists to explain their research in everyday language to a broad audience. Others think such efforts are a waste of time—time they could be spending on their research. I’m in the former camp, but once thought that I did not have time for outreach and that it had little or no benefit for me. I knew there were science communicators whose job it was to translate my science for public consumption; so why should I waste my valuable time?

I changed my mind when a “communication specialist” attempted to write about one of my research projects. As the expert, I was asked to review and revise the piece before it was published. Well, I was horrified to see that the article was terrible and would have conveyed an inaccurate picture of my research and, by extension, of me. I spent a lot of time trying to “fix” the article. I kept going back and forth with the author trying to explain why what she said was confusing and not totally accurate. Finally, I threw up my hands and said (to myself), “It would have been easier if I had written this myself.”  That piece was never published, but I went on to write a non-technical fact sheet on the topic, which was published. That was the beginning. I went on to write several more fact sheets and non-technical articles and, eventually, to make videos about my research. I discovered that I enjoyed creating these information products and that they were very popular, especially with students.

Don’t get me wrong. There are a lot of great science communicators out there who do a wonderful job describing scientific discoveries and the underlying research. If you are lucky enough to work with one of them, you should. My point in describing my experience is to show what it took to change my mind about interacting with the public and to also suggest that as scientific researchers, we have a unique perspective on the topic that the public wants to hear.

I was reminded of my experience when I came across a brief video on the National Science Foundation’s website by Lawrence Krauss, well-known physicist and recipient of the 2012 Public Service Award. In it, he makes the case for scientists to share their work with the general public. Take a look, and then I’ll have a few more words to say about the topic and my experiences along these lines. In case you can’t see the player window, here is the direct link: http://bcove.me/lt4ojvh7 [bc]http://bcove.me/lt4ojvh7[/bc]

Why Is Interacting with the Public Important?

I’ve discussed the various reasons why scientists should explain their work to the public in previous blog posts. Dr. Krauss mentions a few. One reason is that our research is paid for by public funds (in one way or another), which means the average person on the street has a right to know what we are doing. Not all researchers would agree with this. However, long gone are the days when a scientist could stay sequestered in their ivory tower. We may be called upon to explain our work on camera or to comment on a disaster. I and my colleagues are often contacted by journalists, by scientific journals (for a comment on a recent publication), and by local TV stations; a few colleagues have even been asked to testify before Congress. Having good communication skills are increasingly essential for researchers. Being a good communicator, however, like anything else, takes practice. And talking to the public or to the media is not the same as interacting with your colleagues. By being proactive and interacting with the public (e.g., giving a public lecture or inviting a school group to your lab), we gain valuable experience that may come in handy in the future.

There is a more important reason than the public’s right to know, however. It is in our own best interests to keep the public informed and interested in scientific research. Science funding is influenced by public opinion, and we should be concerned about what the public thinks of science and scientists. There are a number of anti-science and pseudoscience groups that are well-funded and technologically savvy. Their rhetoric may misinform the public and sway opinions unless scientists step up and provide credible and accurate information to counter outlandish claims. This, for me, is a strong motivation….much more so than simply wanting to explain my work because it’s important or interesting.

I liked the point made in the video that the ideas and discoveries in science are part of our culture like art or music or literature and should be more broadly shared. Although it is satisfying to contribute to scientific knowledge, it is doubly rewarding to know that you’ve also made a contribution to the cultural landscape by broadly sharing your insights about the Earth or the universe. By communicating our research directly, we can share our scholarly pursuits with people who otherwise may never have the experience. What motivated us to study viruses or how we managed to collect our samples from an active volcano is information that reveals us to be human and is what people can relate to.

I think many researchers are hesitant to share their work with the public because of the perception that the public doesn’t care about science. However, the public is most definitely interested in science, in new ideas, and in exciting discoveries. One only need look at the millions of viewers attracted by TED videos to be convinced of this. As Dr. Lawrence suggests, give it a try…you might be pleasantly surprised at the reaction. Yes, there are concerns about attracting negative attention by going public, especially if you work in a “controversial” field such as climate science. However, for most researchers, this is not a major concern.

Unexpected Bonus of Public Interaction

Dr. Krauss made an excellent point right at the beginning: a good way to understand things is to explain them. For early-career researchers, experience explaining your work to broader audiences will build confidence and may also have a feedback effect on your research. A deeper understanding (and appreciation) of my subject has been for me an unexpected and useful outcome of developing information products for a general audience. For one thing, the process has helped me see things through my audience’s eyes—which has improved my technical presentations and writing.

Explaining complex science topics so that the general public can understand also makes you really think about the broader aspects of your research. Why is my work important to society? What would the average person find interesting about it? How will it advance knowledge in my field? What are the broader implications of my work? What new questions does my research raise? A number of funding agencies (e.g., the U.S. National Science Foundation or the National Institutes of Health) expect researchers to be able to articulate the “broader impacts” of their proposed project in grant proposals. An ability to explain your work to a broader audience will put you at an advantage over those colleagues who lack those skills or who choose to remain in their ivory tower.

Encourage, Don’t Discourage Researchers to Interact with the Public

Not every scientist should interact with the public. As Dr. Krauss points out, there are some researchers who should be kept in the ivory tower—you can probably think of a few colleagues who belong in this category. It would be a mistake for an administrator, for example, to force all researchers in their organization to interact with the public. Instead, we should encourage those scientists who have good teaching (or other interpersonal) skills to explain their work more widely. In any scientific discipline there are thousands of members; if only a small percentage give public lectures, start science blogs, or make science videos, there will be a significant impact.

We also should be encouraging and training the next generation of scientists to be better communicators—something that a few schools are implementing in their science curricula. I find that many more students these days express an interest in science communication, and this may have a snowball effect as they become teachers and mentors to future generations of scientists.

In summary, there are many ways for scientists to interact with the public and a number of benefits for the individual scientist as well as for the science community as a whole. Also, there are various ways for a scientist to interact with the public. Since this is a blog about science videography, I have to say that video is a very effective and efficient way to share your research with the public. When I think back to the time when I thought public engagement was a waste of time, I cringe. But I do understand the mindset of those researchers who avoid interacting with the public. As Dr. Krauss suggests, if you feel really uncomfortable, then perhaps you shouldn’t. However, it’s worth trying at least once. Who knows? Like me, you may discover a whole new way of communicating.

The Stories We Tell

Posted on by

Scientists are often reluctant, if not downright obstinate, about using storytelling in science communication. I think we feel this way because we somehow believe that science information should not need any ‘dressing up’ to make it palatable to an audience. I felt this way at one time but changed my mind when I saw the power of storytelling. As I explained in the last post, a story can overcome extreme distaste about a particular topic and even change the viewer’s overall perception of the subject.

But there is more that stories can do for those of us in science.

We can use stories to not only make our science more palatable to others, we can change stereotypes about science and scientists by telling our unique stories—especially through video. I’ve been pondering stereotypes in science for some time now, especially as it relates to women in science. Despite much effort by many organizations, negative stereotypes persist in the public’s mind, which can dissuade students from going into science. The old-fashioned image of an old, white male with frizzy white hair in a wrinkled lab coat is what the average person thinks of, even though there are exceptions on TV and the Internet (Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Brian Cox). Women in particular suffer from negative stereotyping, which has prompted numerous reports about why so few women choose science as a career (there are many reports, but here’s one and here is a series of articles in Nature); recognition of the problem has led to various efforts to attract more girls to science fields (here’s an example).

I think the efforts to attract girls and minorities to science are laudable but that they will not be effective unless we can overturn those negative stereotypes that dissuade students from considering a career in science in the first place. Those of us in science, particularly women and other minorities, can help overturn stereotypes by telling our stories and showing those outside (and inside) science fields that scientists are a diverse group, that science is an exciting and rewarding career, and that anyone can do science.

I connected the two topics, stereotypes in science and storytelling, when I watched a video: The Danger of a Single Story by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. She describes how we develop inaccurate and narrow views about other people or countries when we hear only a single story about them. Essentially, she’s describing how stereotypes arise and persist. Take a look and then we’ll discuss these ideas in relation to stereotypes in science:

Ms. Adichie describes how her perceptions of the world were molded by the literature she read—literature that she found fascinating and memorable. She describes how as a budding writer, she began writing stories that were about the characters she had read about—white, living in temperate climates, and preferring ginger beer—even though she was Nigerian and had quite different experiences. Even after she realized how that narrow view had delayed discovery of her authentic cultural voice, she found herself succumbing to other stereotypes.

I thought about the examples Ms. Adichie used in her TED talk, which reminded me of the mad scientist stereotype that persists probably because of a single memorable story—told over and over again—which can be traced back to Mary Shelley’s novel, Frankenstein (1818). One could argue that there were precursors to the ‘mad scientist’ in Shelley’s novel; however, the average person on the street likely only knows the story of Frankenstein, which has been repeated in multiple movies since the original 1931 version. Moreover, the ‘mad scientist’ stereotype crops up repeatedly in popular film—from Dr. Strangelove to Dr. Curt Connors (The Lizard) in The Amazing Spiderman. Stories about mad scientists apparently resonate with people and have created an indelible image in the public’s mind. The average person, who has never met a scientist, has only such stereotypes to guide their perceptions about what type of people become scientists or what it is like to be a scientist. Even students who are interested in science may be unclear about what life in a scientific field is like.

A few educators are recognizing the need for storytelling—that is, telling stories that fire up students’ imaginations—to attract more students to STEM fields, especially girls. We scientists can also help by showing what it’s like to do science. And using video is a very effective means for showing what scientists look like and how they go about doing science (however, see this post for how not to do it). Used correctly, video can be an effective recruitment tool by showing real scientists at work:

This video is ostensibly about an expedition to study the Agulhas Current, but it really is about how women can be successful in a field like oceanography. The video makes it clear that women are not only capable of being oceanographers, they find it exciting and fulfilling. This message is driven home by not only showing a female in the chief scientist role leading the research cruise but by featuring numerous other women working in various positions such as graduate students, data analysts, oceanographic technologists, and ship’s mates and technicians. The interview with the captain reiterated the key role that female scientists and crew play in the success of the cruise and that their presence is now commonplace on such research cruises. The video also makes an important point about female role models who are needed to show younger women that it is possible to make it in a field that may be dominated by men or that involves intimidating work. The video’s message is summed up by the chief scientist who says, “Why should men have all the fun?”

I can’t imagine a girl watching this video and not being impressed with the idea of a career in oceanography. In fact, a video very much like this one that I saw in high school motivated me to want to study marine science. Even though I was discouraged from going into science by almost everyone (this was the 1950-60s), the vision I got of a life in science from that film kept me going. Any scientist, especially if you are a female or other minority, can make a difference by creating videos that show what real scientists look like and how someone can have an amazing career in science.

Perhaps if enough of us tell our stories, the public’s image of the mad (white, male) scientist will fade and be replaced with a more accurate one.