What do you think?
Rate this book
Am I Making Myself Clear?: A Scientist's Guide to Talking to the Public
What we don’t know can hurt us—and does so every day. Climate change, health care policy, weapons of mass destruction, an aging infrastructure, stem cell research, endangered species, space exploration—all affect our lives as citizens and human beings in practical and profound ways. But unless we understand the science behind these issues, we cannot make reasonable decisions—and worse, we are susceptible to propaganda cloaked in scientific rhetoric. To convey the facts, this book suggests, scientists must take a more active role in making their work accessible to the media, and thus to the public. In Am I Making Myself Clear? Cornelia Dean, a distinguished science editor and reporter, urges scientists to overcome their institutional reticence and let their voices be heard beyond the forum of scholarly publication. By offering useful hints for improving their interactions with policymakers, the public, and her fellow journalists, Dean aims to change the attitude of scientists who scorn the mass media as an arena where important work is too often misrepresented or hyped. Even more important, she seeks to convince them of the value and urgency of communicating to the public. Am I Making Myself Clear? shows scientists how to speak to the public, handle the media, and describe their work to a lay audience on paper, online, and over the airwaves. It is a book that will improve the tone and content of debate over critical issues and will serve the interests of science and society.
288 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2009
15 people are currently reading
251 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
April 12, 2020
There are some good tips in here. There's also a bunch of excuses for how science-writers keep getting things wrong all the time because they don't know any science. They know they don't know how to assess evidence and so they do he said-she said interviewing, and they know this is wrong, but they do it anyway. Sad. But that's important for people to understand.
May 7, 2024
Overall, I was not impressed and have many bones to pick, but for this will focus on just one issue. As a journalist and a scientist, this work --- while accessible for scientists that frequently talk with the media --- it holds an extremely narrow and deficit view of what science communication is, and completely disregards that science communication is a MASSIVE field that is growing as academia comes to realize that only having skills in one area of research is simply not enough to ensure one's research has impact beyond the ivory tower (albeit at a glacial pace).
April 5, 2012
A Concise Guide on the Art of Public Communication for Scientists and Journalists
Scientists must learn to become better communicators, argues former New York Times science editor Cornelia Dean in her surprisingly terse, but most lucid, “am I making myself clear? A Scientist’s Guide to Talking to the Public”. However, unlike several recently published books on this very subject, Dean not only extols scientists to become better communicators, but she also demonstrates how, giving pointers on everything from personal etiquette and appearance when speaking on television, to giving extensive advice on handling questions, especially during interviews, from journalists. One could view this as her version of the classic literary reference “The Elements of Style” written originally by the writer E. B. White, in which she discusses every aspect of communicating more effectively, science to the public. To her credit, Dean’s excellent advice on how scientists should communicate isn’t limited only to traditional media. She discusses at great length, the rapid expansion of the internet and how scientists should use it effectively for communication, and devotes an entire chapter on how scientists can present evidence and discuss their legal Importance if called to testify in court cases.
Dean’s recommendations aren’t limited solely to scientists. Her book deserves to be read widely by journalists as well, simply because she has distilled her decades-long experience as both a New York Times science editor and as a science journalist into a series of recommendations which every journalist writing on science should heed. Of course her recommendations should be noted too by students studying science writing in college or in a graduate journalism or writing program. Among these includes gaining the trust of scientists who are often wary of getting queries from journalists, not least because much scientific research that is reported by the press tends to be sensationalized and misinterpreted, and that is due not only ignorance of science and methodology from many journalists, but because they often fail to see what is most interesting about such research. Much to her credit, Cornelia Dean has written a book of such noteworthy importance to both scientists and journalists that it should be viewed as essential reading simply for being such an extensive guide to the art of communicating science to the public.
Scientists must learn to become better communicators, argues former New York Times science editor Cornelia Dean in her surprisingly terse, but most lucid, “am I making myself clear? A Scientist’s Guide to Talking to the Public”. However, unlike several recently published books on this very subject, Dean not only extols scientists to become better communicators, but she also demonstrates how, giving pointers on everything from personal etiquette and appearance when speaking on television, to giving extensive advice on handling questions, especially during interviews, from journalists. One could view this as her version of the classic literary reference “The Elements of Style” written originally by the writer E. B. White, in which she discusses every aspect of communicating more effectively, science to the public. To her credit, Dean’s excellent advice on how scientists should communicate isn’t limited only to traditional media. She discusses at great length, the rapid expansion of the internet and how scientists should use it effectively for communication, and devotes an entire chapter on how scientists can present evidence and discuss their legal Importance if called to testify in court cases.
Dean’s recommendations aren’t limited solely to scientists. Her book deserves to be read widely by journalists as well, simply because she has distilled her decades-long experience as both a New York Times science editor and as a science journalist into a series of recommendations which every journalist writing on science should heed. Of course her recommendations should be noted too by students studying science writing in college or in a graduate journalism or writing program. Among these includes gaining the trust of scientists who are often wary of getting queries from journalists, not least because much scientific research that is reported by the press tends to be sensationalized and misinterpreted, and that is due not only ignorance of science and methodology from many journalists, but because they often fail to see what is most interesting about such research. Much to her credit, Cornelia Dean has written a book of such noteworthy importance to both scientists and journalists that it should be viewed as essential reading simply for being such an extensive guide to the art of communicating science to the public.
February 17, 2020
Very clear! (To answer the title question)
Cornelia Dean writes as clearly as she wishes researchers would when they communicate their knowledge, concerns and (informed) opinions to the public. I'm already sold on the concept that scientists should engage more with the public. I hope more scientists will consider it in the future and when they do - this book is a great guide on how to start. It also includes a list of additional reading material you may want to consult after finishing this book.
With some luck I'll summarize some of this book's advice for my medical writing job - in which case I'll include the link in the description.
Cornelia Dean writes as clearly as she wishes researchers would when they communicate their knowledge, concerns and (informed) opinions to the public. I'm already sold on the concept that scientists should engage more with the public. I hope more scientists will consider it in the future and when they do - this book is a great guide on how to start. It also includes a list of additional reading material you may want to consult after finishing this book.
With some luck I'll summarize some of this book's advice for my medical writing job - in which case I'll include the link in the description.
March 22, 2012
I jumped around through this book - it was interesting for me to peruse through a bit, but not working in journalism nor being a scientist courted by journalists, it went into far more depth than relevant to me. However, it did provide some ideas that I will keep in mind when considering science PR and I would recommend science writers and frequently interviewed scientists read this book or something like it to help foster a mutual understanding between the two parties and help each get what they need to do their jobs.
November 6, 2020
This is a slightly tricky book to review, because it must be judged on two different grounds: within the worldview that it assumes, and within the actual world in which it's working.
The worldview that it assumes is one in which scientists ought to be out, as individuals, at every opportunity possible, talking to the media. Within that frame, the book is a 3 star entry. It offers some reasonable, if cliché, advice about working in different genres (e.g., speak in the way the public will understand, but don't dumb things down!). But, it often offers just enough advice to be dangerous. Its chapters on working with policymakers or holding a press conference, for instance, give you a faint whiff of knowing something... without giving you even remotely close to enough to pull it off successfully if challenged.
For what it's worth, it also offers a reasonable couple of pages pointing out how science needs to be only one input among many others (e.g., values, economic priorities, etc) in making policy decisions... but seems to neglect that advice throughout the entirety of the rest of the book, caving instead to rosy narratives about just how good it would be if more people knew science, and scientists talked to the public more, and scientists fixed education, and, and, and.
The more problematic and dangerous flaw of the book, though, is epistemological. At it's core, Dean sets up an analysis wherein there's a deficit of science in the world, and individual scientists ought to fix it through earnest and honest testimony, perhaps even acknowledging the limits of their scientific prowess and its rightful place.
The problem, though, is that Dean - and almost everyone in the scientific community, including a bunch of 'critical' scholars - neglects the vastly different types of knowledge production we need. Scientists who are skilled and trained to be excellent at conducting individual experiments and studies ARE NOT conducting even remotely the same task as the process of evidence evaluation, synthesis, and integration. Running a study on a particular toxin, for instance, is a fundamentally different kind of job from studying all of the studies on this toxin to determine if there's consensus, what gaps remain, and how this knowledge should be translated and mobilized.
In the end, then, I think there's a lot more potential /harm/ that occurs when scientists focused on the individual-experiment mode engage with the public, journalists, or decision-makers. They're not equipped to answer the kinds of questions these groups have, and do not have the skills nor the training to do the 'forest' level analysis as specialists on 'trees.' This isn't to suggest that people can't bridge this gap, but rather to say that these are vastly different as epistemic tasks and require totally distinct training and experience. For some reason, though, we - and Dean, in this book - see them as being the same.
As such, this is a tricky review to write. From the perspective of giving some practical advice on how to talk with journalists and the like, this book is alright... if risking giving you just enough knowledge to get yourself into trouble. But, from the perspective of making the case that scientists ought to talk to the public, decision-makers, or journalists, this book bungles the argument entirely. It ends up shoring up a problematic form of science communication that increasingly makes scientists a narrow-minded advocacy group, rather than recognizing that there are totally different forms of knowledge production that are needed... and that "scientists should talk to the media" and "evidence synthesizers should talk to the media" are polar opposite recommendations with very different outcomes and desirabilities.
The worldview that it assumes is one in which scientists ought to be out, as individuals, at every opportunity possible, talking to the media. Within that frame, the book is a 3 star entry. It offers some reasonable, if cliché, advice about working in different genres (e.g., speak in the way the public will understand, but don't dumb things down!). But, it often offers just enough advice to be dangerous. Its chapters on working with policymakers or holding a press conference, for instance, give you a faint whiff of knowing something... without giving you even remotely close to enough to pull it off successfully if challenged.
For what it's worth, it also offers a reasonable couple of pages pointing out how science needs to be only one input among many others (e.g., values, economic priorities, etc) in making policy decisions... but seems to neglect that advice throughout the entirety of the rest of the book, caving instead to rosy narratives about just how good it would be if more people knew science, and scientists talked to the public more, and scientists fixed education, and, and, and.
The more problematic and dangerous flaw of the book, though, is epistemological. At it's core, Dean sets up an analysis wherein there's a deficit of science in the world, and individual scientists ought to fix it through earnest and honest testimony, perhaps even acknowledging the limits of their scientific prowess and its rightful place.
The problem, though, is that Dean - and almost everyone in the scientific community, including a bunch of 'critical' scholars - neglects the vastly different types of knowledge production we need. Scientists who are skilled and trained to be excellent at conducting individual experiments and studies ARE NOT conducting even remotely the same task as the process of evidence evaluation, synthesis, and integration. Running a study on a particular toxin, for instance, is a fundamentally different kind of job from studying all of the studies on this toxin to determine if there's consensus, what gaps remain, and how this knowledge should be translated and mobilized.
In the end, then, I think there's a lot more potential /harm/ that occurs when scientists focused on the individual-experiment mode engage with the public, journalists, or decision-makers. They're not equipped to answer the kinds of questions these groups have, and do not have the skills nor the training to do the 'forest' level analysis as specialists on 'trees.' This isn't to suggest that people can't bridge this gap, but rather to say that these are vastly different as epistemic tasks and require totally distinct training and experience. For some reason, though, we - and Dean, in this book - see them as being the same.
As such, this is a tricky review to write. From the perspective of giving some practical advice on how to talk with journalists and the like, this book is alright... if risking giving you just enough knowledge to get yourself into trouble. But, from the perspective of making the case that scientists ought to talk to the public, decision-makers, or journalists, this book bungles the argument entirely. It ends up shoring up a problematic form of science communication that increasingly makes scientists a narrow-minded advocacy group, rather than recognizing that there are totally different forms of knowledge production that are needed... and that "scientists should talk to the media" and "evidence synthesizers should talk to the media" are polar opposite recommendations with very different outcomes and desirabilities.
September 29, 2022
Komunikasi sains penting untuk mencerdaskan masyarakat. Tinggal lihat sekeliling untuk setuju: kelompok-kelompok yang menganut paham anti sains, bahkan untuk hal-hal yang sudah dibuktikan ratusan tahun lalu seperti bentuk planet bumi.
Atau yang sedang jadi berita sekarang, betapa mudahnya kenaifan publik tentang crypto dimanfaatkan para influencer. Sedih nggak sih?
Apalagi saat ini planet kita sedang dalam krisis: perubahan iklim mengancam seluruh isi bumi. Tapi publik yang awam tidak paham apa yang terjadi -scientifically- sehingga mudah dimanipulasi oleh yang berkepentingan, menjadi climate change denier. Lebih parah lagi ketika yang antisains ini adalah para pengambil kebijakan. Hancurlah bumi kita.
Menurut buku ini, sebagai bagian dari demokrasi, ilmuwan perlu aktif mengomunikasikan ilmunya, menjadi 'cahaya yang menerangi jalan' publik agar tidak terjerumus sudut pandang yang salah dan membahayakan diri sendiri serta orang lain.
Cornelia Dean adalah jurnalis yang pernah bekerja sebagai science editor di New York Times. Ia juga mengajar komunikasi sains di kampus-kampus Ivy League, karenanya ia tahu persis masalah-masalah komunikasi yang terjadi antara ilmuwan, media, dan publik.
Salah satu yang bikin ilmuwan malas bicara ke media, adalah kecenderungan media untuk 'overhype' hal sekunder, bukannya menyoroti hal penting dari kerja ilmiahnya. Menurut Dean, karena itu ilmuwan juga perlu menyampaikan kerjanya dengan bahasa yang relatif mudah dimengerti oleh jurnalis. Tunjukkan mana yang penting disoroti, supaya jurnalisnya juga tahu.
Buku ini penuh dengan panduan penting yang praktis bagi ilmuwan untuk mengomunikasikan ilmunya. Sebagian sudah usang sih, karena ini buku lama. Jadi bab-bab seperti menulis di koran, wawancara radio dan TV agak kurang relevan sekarang di era medsos di mana ilmuwan bisa berinteraksi langsung dengan dengan publik. Tapi prinsip-prinsipnya tetap sama, misalnya:
- jauhi istilah2 rumit, jargon-jargon ilmiah (apalagi cuma supaya terlihat pintar, ya nggak?). Tidak berarti harus 'dumbing down', melainkan 'pakailah bahasa yang berbeda, bukan bahasa akademik'. Ingat, tujuannya untuk mencerahkan, bukan bikin bingung.
- jangan menjelaskan secara bertele-tele.
- latih kemampuan komunikasi publik dengan cara berlatih menerangkan ilmu tsb kepada keluarga, teman, tetangga.
- baca/lihat cara ilmuwan lain mengomunikasikan ilmunya. Belajar dari mereka.
dll
Selain tips komunikasi lewat koran, radio, TV, buku, Dean memberi beberapa contoh lain yang juga bisa dicoba:
- forum dialog ilmuwan dan pengambil kebijakan
- mengadakan obrol-obrol santai ilmiah di suatu tempat ala Cafe Scientifique atau science cafe, kegiatan yang dimulai di Inggris (bisa dicek di sini http://cafescientifique.org/ )
- mengadakan kuliah umum gratis
dll
"I hope (this book) will convince researchers that communicating their work and the work of others to the lay public is important for society, and a valuable use of their time"
***
Catatan pribadi : dengan adanya medsos, komunikasi sains sekarang jauh lebih mudah, kalau ilmuwannya mau. Masalahnya adalah konten ilmiah dan berkualitas sulit bersaing dengan konten entertainment dan konten 'sampah' yang jauh lebih banyak.
Solusinya perlu dipikirkan bersama. Mungkin konten ilmiah juga perlu influencer.
-dydy-
Atau yang sedang jadi berita sekarang, betapa mudahnya kenaifan publik tentang crypto dimanfaatkan para influencer. Sedih nggak sih?
Apalagi saat ini planet kita sedang dalam krisis: perubahan iklim mengancam seluruh isi bumi. Tapi publik yang awam tidak paham apa yang terjadi -scientifically- sehingga mudah dimanipulasi oleh yang berkepentingan, menjadi climate change denier. Lebih parah lagi ketika yang antisains ini adalah para pengambil kebijakan. Hancurlah bumi kita.
Menurut buku ini, sebagai bagian dari demokrasi, ilmuwan perlu aktif mengomunikasikan ilmunya, menjadi 'cahaya yang menerangi jalan' publik agar tidak terjerumus sudut pandang yang salah dan membahayakan diri sendiri serta orang lain.
Cornelia Dean adalah jurnalis yang pernah bekerja sebagai science editor di New York Times. Ia juga mengajar komunikasi sains di kampus-kampus Ivy League, karenanya ia tahu persis masalah-masalah komunikasi yang terjadi antara ilmuwan, media, dan publik.
Salah satu yang bikin ilmuwan malas bicara ke media, adalah kecenderungan media untuk 'overhype' hal sekunder, bukannya menyoroti hal penting dari kerja ilmiahnya. Menurut Dean, karena itu ilmuwan juga perlu menyampaikan kerjanya dengan bahasa yang relatif mudah dimengerti oleh jurnalis. Tunjukkan mana yang penting disoroti, supaya jurnalisnya juga tahu.
Buku ini penuh dengan panduan penting yang praktis bagi ilmuwan untuk mengomunikasikan ilmunya. Sebagian sudah usang sih, karena ini buku lama. Jadi bab-bab seperti menulis di koran, wawancara radio dan TV agak kurang relevan sekarang di era medsos di mana ilmuwan bisa berinteraksi langsung dengan dengan publik. Tapi prinsip-prinsipnya tetap sama, misalnya:
- jauhi istilah2 rumit, jargon-jargon ilmiah (apalagi cuma supaya terlihat pintar, ya nggak?). Tidak berarti harus 'dumbing down', melainkan 'pakailah bahasa yang berbeda, bukan bahasa akademik'. Ingat, tujuannya untuk mencerahkan, bukan bikin bingung.
- jangan menjelaskan secara bertele-tele.
- latih kemampuan komunikasi publik dengan cara berlatih menerangkan ilmu tsb kepada keluarga, teman, tetangga.
- baca/lihat cara ilmuwan lain mengomunikasikan ilmunya. Belajar dari mereka.
dll
Selain tips komunikasi lewat koran, radio, TV, buku, Dean memberi beberapa contoh lain yang juga bisa dicoba:
- forum dialog ilmuwan dan pengambil kebijakan
- mengadakan obrol-obrol santai ilmiah di suatu tempat ala Cafe Scientifique atau science cafe, kegiatan yang dimulai di Inggris (bisa dicek di sini http://cafescientifique.org/ )
- mengadakan kuliah umum gratis
dll
"I hope (this book) will convince researchers that communicating their work and the work of others to the lay public is important for society, and a valuable use of their time"
***
Catatan pribadi : dengan adanya medsos, komunikasi sains sekarang jauh lebih mudah, kalau ilmuwannya mau. Masalahnya adalah konten ilmiah dan berkualitas sulit bersaing dengan konten entertainment dan konten 'sampah' yang jauh lebih banyak.
Solusinya perlu dipikirkan bersama. Mungkin konten ilmiah juga perlu influencer.
-dydy-
April 14, 2020
Recommend for anyone interested in communicating any topic that is technical or otherwise disregarded by society.
September 30, 2020
Informative and clear. A good read that offers guides on various type of writing (or speaking) that is applicable.
July 25, 2019
I’m working on a science PhD and have hopes to use it to help spread knowledge of science. So I guess that makes me the ideal audience for this book. The book is short and dense on ideas while still being easy to read. Cornelia Dean believes strongly that scientist have a role in public life. Scientist have a responsibility to work harder at pulling together the threads of their research and explaining it. This is not to say that every scientist should be a science communicator, or that every scientist should be spending most of their time or even a large portion of their time on out reach. What it is saying that when you find something useful, you should share it, and when you do, you need to recognize what level of detail different audiences need. The scientific audience may want every single caveat and a thorough explanation of methodology, but those things are unnecessary in a summary. It’s a book aimed at a narrow segment of the population, but I think that that narrow section can benefit greatly from it. Well worth reading.
March 5, 2012
Besides the multiple mentions of the NY Times that funded the writer, the book does show what journalists wants to hear from a scientist. Unfortunately all the points the author makes could have been made in a couple of chapters. It definitely won't appeal to a scientist with standard training and no intermediate exposure to speaking to the general pubic and this. There are better books on this topic.
April 3, 2013
This book provides straight-forward advice for scientists and engineers to communicate their research in a way for the general public to understand, which is important given how much policy should and must be based on science and technology but is based on social opinion instead. I think I just summed up the summary on the book cover... no false advertising here.
April 9, 2015
This is quite a good handbook for, guess what, scientists who need or want to talk to the general public in any number of ways. I found it very informative and will most likely refer to it if I ever end up in that situation.
Read
October 7, 2013If Don't Be Such a Scientist: Talking Substance in an Age of Styleis too goofy for you, try this one.
June 7, 2023
Excellent guide for anyone in sciences who is interested in communicating with the general public about their research. Also a plea for all scientists to do so.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Read
November 2, 2010Reading club with Sandra yayyyeeeeee!!!!!
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews