The Diverse Audience: Who Are They and What Are They Looking For?

diverse audience science video who are theyIn the last post, I made the argument that for a scientist to be competitive, she must not only gain an edge in scientific technical skills but in communication skills, especially ways to connect with a diverse audience.  Because this blog is focused on science videography, I’ll be emphasizing the use of video to reach a diverse audience, but the basic ideas and suggestions I present in this series will work for press releases, fact sheets, and other written or oral communications.

In this post, I’d like to explain what I mean by a diverse audience.  In addition to scientists, there are resource managers, policy-makers, the news media, students, and the general public. These are all important audiences for a scientist to be prepared to communicate with.  Because many of these people are not scientists, you will need to modify your message so that it is understandable, of interest, and accessible to a non-scientist.  Some scientists mistakenly believe that this means “dumbing down” their science message and that in doing so the message becomes less than accurate or perhaps is more likely to be misinterpreted or misused.

However, crafting a good science communication product for a broad audience does not mean the message must be dumbed down.  It means instead that you need to find the core idea in your information and express it simply.  I’ll talk more about this in coming posts.

In addition to focusing on a central idea or message and stating it simply, you must communicate it in a way that is of interest to the broader audience.  There are many ways to accomplish this, which I will also go into detail about in future posts in this series.  For now, the basic way to ensure interest in your information is to show how it relates to your audience.  This result can be accomplished, for example, by including a human-interest aspect in your message.  People can relate better to facts and figures if there is a human element involved that they find interesting or that they can connect with emotionally.  Of course, putting your message into a short video is an excellent way to not only explain your work but to connect with people in a way that text just does not accomplish.

Another point about effective science communications is that the information must be readily accessible to the broader audience. I often hear scientists stating that their research is published in the peer-reviewed literature, and anyone interested can just read about it.  What they are forgetting is that access to technical publications is often limited for non-scientists.  They then may argue that their scientific articles are available on their personal websites as downloadable pdfs, but authors are typically prohibited by journals from posting copyrighted material.  Most journals hold the copyright to your published articles, and these should not be posted on personal websites without permission (you do know this, right?).  However, written summaries or short videos describing your published work can be posted on the internet and will make your work more broadly known and lead students and other scientists to your technical publications.  The more people who become aware of your work, the more it is likely to be cited, raising your H-index.  In upcoming posts, I’ll describe how you might go about creating short videos that highlight a recent publication and mention some applications that will facilitate the development of these and other types of research briefs.

Finally, a lot of people are looking for science information on the internet in the form of video.  YouTube is now a huge search engine, with hundreds of millions of users and channels devoted to specific topics, including science.  The average person looking for information about black holes, deforestation, ocean acidification, or sea-level rise is going to prefer a short, informative video over any other type of communication….and if it’s also entertaining, all the better.  You can reach a lot more people with a video than with a written document.  Students who visit your website are much more likely to click on a video clip than on a text description.  If you can capture a student’s attention with a video, they may be encouraged to seek more detailed and technical information about your work or your research group.

Video Review: What Is A Flame?

Some of you may have heard about the “Flame Challenge” proposed by Alan Alda, the actor, and sponsored by the Center for Communicating Science.  In an effort to promote clear communication of science, Alda challenged scientists and engineers to explain what a flame is, using everyday language that an 11-year old could understand.

There were over 800 entries, which were judged by 6,000 11-year olds around the world.  The medium used to create the explanation was entirely open.  Some entries were written text; others were graphical; and a few were videos.  It was no surprise to me that the winning entry was a video.  Here’s the winning entry by Ben Ames, a Ph.D. student in quantum optics:

What was a surprise to me was how few of the finalists submitted videos.  I was really curious to know how many of the 800 or so entries used video, but could not find that information.  So I could only judge by the proportion of videos in the list of finalists (5) and honorable mentions (8).  Of these (total of 13), only five were video entries, and many were just written text (7 of 13 = 54%).

Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised that so many scientists and engineers submitted written text to explain what a flame is.  That’s the medium they are accustomed to using.  They clearly did NOT have their audience (11-year olds) in mind when coming up with the medium to convey their explanation of a flame.  I can’t imagine why anyone would think an 11-year old would be impressed with a text explanation.  Before I go any further, here are a couple of the text entries so you’ll get the idea:

Honorable Mention (electrical engineer):  “A flame is like you (a human) and needs oxygen to breathe and must eat to live, except a flame will eat almost anything (wax, wood, paper, etc.).  After a flame eats its dinner, it “poops” out part of what it ate in the form of ashes or melted wax.”

Finalist (engineer): “What is a flame? A flame is an object, a “thing,” something you can see, something you can touch (but don’t do that because it is hot). It is not like other objects, such as a rock, because it “happens” and then goes away.  It “happens” when something (a “combustible”) is heated to a high enough temperature and then starts to burn. This might be wood, or paper, or gas, or oil, or dry leaves, just to name a few. It takes different amounts of heat to get them to burn, but they all do. The big name for things burning is “combustion.” You get the heat by burning something else or — if you have a magnifying glass and focus sunlight on a single spot — you will be able to burn paper and some other things.

There are other ways to make a flame by mixing chemicals, but heating is easiest to understand. When something burns, it changes into ash and/or a gas (“residue”), and light. This light is what is called “a flame.”  So a flame is what you see when something burns.”

Now, I’m not picking on engineers or these two specific examples.  These were two of the shortest entries that made it into the final selections.  Short is good.  Other written entries were quite a bit longer.  These descriptions are simple and clear enough for an 11-year old to understand.  The problem is that for visual learners, verbal explanations are not going to work well.  All of this makes me wonder about the other 780 or so entries that did not make it into the final group.

It’s also clear why the winning entry was the one that the 11-year old judges selected:  It was fun to watch.  I can imagine after reading a bunch of written entries that this video was a welcome relief.  It also contained many of the elements I’ve listed previously for what makes a science video effective:

1. The video is relatively short (7 1/2 min).

2. The information is presented visually (as well as verbally).

3. The video continually adds information at a steady but rapid pace.

4.  There is constant motion going on throughout the video.

5. Colors are intense and dramatic.

6. The text is minimal; only what is essential to understanding.

7.  The video elicits an emotional reaction in the viewer (amazement, amusement, curiosity).

8.  The video has people, animals, or cartoon characters that are doing something interesting, unusual, or surprising (a cartoon man chained in what appears to be Hell).

9.  There is an element of suspense (what will happen to the guy who’s chained up?).

So overall, I thought the winning entry was particularly good from the standpoint of creativity and meeting audience expectations.  One possible criticism, which I came across at another blog by Marc Kuchner, is that the video perpetuates the stereotype of the nerdy, cold-hearted scientist.  I see his point, although I don’t think this video is the worst example of scientist stereotypes (see this post for a really bad video with stereotypes).  Nonetheless, it’s something to keep in mind when designing science communication products.

On the other hand, I was disappointed that so few scientists and engineers bothered to do more than just write a text explanation.  A few of the graphical or video entries were submitted by scientists/engineers who partnered with someone who helped them develop the visual components.  At least they realized that there needed to be a visual explanation to help get across the information to an 11-year old, and they sought out someone who had those skills.

In summary, I think this contest highlighted the enormous gap between what the general public needs and expects in the way of science information and how scientists and engineers are trained to communicate their science.  The fact that a few of the contestants were able to create reasonably good videos is encouraging.  But we can do better.

Message to you scientists and engineers out there who are planning to submit an entry to the next science communication challenge:  Kids who’ve grown up with YouTube are not going to be satisfied with text explanations.

Videos of Interesting Animals

I’m finishing up a video I worked on during Hurricane Isaac.  In the meantime, here are two interesting videos about animals.  One shows a feisty cat slapping an alligator (thanks to Mark H. for the link).  The other is of a clever heron using a piece of bread to attract a fish (thanks to Joy M. for the link).

These are examples of videos with amazing content but are poorly shot and edited. Both feature animals doing something unexpected.  Suspense is also a characteristic of both videos.  These features apparently override any deficiencies in the quality of the footage since they each have over 1 million views.

Food for thought when designing your next video….

Tutorial: Avid Studio for the iPad (Part 2)

In this post, I’ve added the second part of the tutorial on using the movie editing program, Avid Studio, for the iPad.  With this app, which costs only $4.99, you can shoot and create professional-looking videos entirely with your iPad.  Avid Studio has more editing options than iMovie, which I covered in previous tutorials, but is a bit more challenging than iMovie.

Both are fine editing programs….each has their advantages and disadvantages.  If you’ve learned how to use iMovie already, however, you’ll have no problem with Avid Studio.  I’ve covered all the basics in this two-part tutorial, but have left some options for you to discover on your own.

So here’s the second and final part of the Avid Studio tutorial (for best viewing, select the HD version and full-screen options (see menu bar at bottom of player window):

Tutorial: Avid Studio for the iPad (Part 1)

Think you need special equipment, expensive software, and special skills to create a video about your work?  Well, if you already have an iPad 2, for just an additional $4.99 for a movie editing app for the iPad, you can shoot and create a professional-looking video. To help you along, I’ve also done a tutorial, linked below, showing how to use Avid Studio.

Previously, I did a tutorial series on the iMovie app for the iPad.  In this post, I talk about another excellent movie editing app for the iPad that you can use.  Avid Studio has more bells and whistles than iMovie, but is a bit more challenging to master and use.  But with this tutorial, you should be able to begin using Avid Studio immediately to edit your science videos.

Take a look at Part 1 (for best viewing, select the HD version and full-screen options (see menu bar at bottom of player window):