yppahpeek

Yesterday we (the "SciComm Class of 2013") had our careers talk. I can hardly believe it has nearly been a year since handing my notice in at work. I did this so I could take a step towards becoming a science communicator. I was an Editorial Assistant with experience in proofreading and copy-editing journal papers, congress submissions and educational materials for the pharmaceutical industry. I knew nothing of Narrative Theory , or the PUS vs. PEST debate, or even of building sculptures . Importantly, I knew nothing about editing audio and video, or about writing news stories. But what next? I need to find someone who will hire me – to take that risk on me. How do they know my skills will meet their requirements? Well, the CV will help, as will providing examples of radio podcasts or writing. But Alok Jha and Chris Riley , freelance documentary film maker ( In The Shadow Of The Moon , The Fantastic Mr Feynman ) seem to think something else is more important. "The wi...

Revision is over and I can write this in my light and airy room at home, rather than in that dark, airless box in which I’ve spent a large proportion of the last two weeks. Exam revision is great for linking ideas which initially appear to be separate and discrete. One link which occurred to me was between narrative theory and Thomas Kuhn’s ‘ Structure of Scientific Revolutions ’. Narrative scholars, such as Vladimir Propp and Tzvetan Todorov have tried to determine what the general structure of a narrative is. While Propp’s structure is really weighty, and a bit vague (it seems his ‘ spheres of action ’ can apply to anything), Todorov argued that all narratives fit within a basic, five-step frame – much more sensible. All narratives start with an initial equilibrium. Early on, there is a disruption from this equilibrium, the characters notice this disruption. There is then an attempt to put the disruption right, before a final equilibrium is reached.  It st...

My opinion of science communication has changed over the 6 months that I’ve been studying it. Before starting, I was one of those who insisted that the public understanding of science could be improved via mass splurging of scientific facts. I was also critical of the media’s representation of science. At best, I viewed it as inaccurate and at worst I viewed it as deliberately misleading in order to drive a journalist’s own personal prejudices. There have been many studies into the proportion of science news stories within newspapers. One conducted in 1995 sampled 6000 articles from popular newspapers between 1945 and 1990 (a preliminary report can be found here ). The authors reported an increase in the proportion of science stories since 1945 (however, there was a peak in the sixties and there has been a decline since). “It’s all well and good to have a large number of science stories,” you might say. “But what about the accuracy of these stories?” A really good accuracy s...