A Beginner’s Guide: How to Write About Science for Non-Experts
There’s no sugar coating it. Writing is hard. Writing about science for a lay audience and the general public is really hard. You may have to communicate inherently difficult or abstract concepts, or provide a rationale for the interpretation of complex data. Often times the challenge is where to start. How much do you assume your reader knows coming in? Which begs the question: Whom are you writing for? It is impossible to write about science, engineering, and mathematics without assuming some degree of background knowledge and understanding, but how much and the level of detail of your exposition are always difficult choices to make. You need to communicate ideas clearly, which implies they are clear in your mind first, and then pick from a variety of writing approaches, tools, and methods to articulate what you want to get across. And you have to do it all in an engaging and entertaining way.
Like anything else you want to get good at, it takes focus, practice, and perseverance. Does it require real work? Yes. Is it worth the effort? Absolutely — for many reasons. If you’re starting out in your career it can provide a way to establish your profile and reputation as a go to expert in the field. (Expert to the general public, of course. Expertise and reputation in the eyes of your peers and other experts is the result of high quality technical publishing, a very different topic from our discussion here.) If you’re an established guru it can provide an opportunity to branch out to another area. Or to communicate your passion for your chosen topic and your own work to a wider audience discovering it for the first time.
So how do you become good at writing about science for non-scientists? In the words of Stephen King …
“Good description is a learned skill, one of the prime reasons why you cannot succeed unless you read a lot and write a lot.”
(And before anyone says it, despite this quote coming from one of the most successful fiction writers of all time, this applies equally well to non-fiction, including science writing.)
So read a lot about science. Not for technical content but for style and how the authors communicate. Pick engaging and well written pieces for a general audience. The ‘Best American Science Writing’ books are great, with examples drawn across different topics and sources. The New York Times ‘Book of Science’ is another good example. Essays and articles published in science-centric sources such as Quanta Magazine (https://www.quantamagazine.org/), Nautilus (http://nautil.us/), Scientific American (https://www.scientificamerican.com/), The Conversation (https://theconversation.com/us), and a number of the publications here in Medium are fantastic examples of well written and engaging pieces. Other sources that are not exclusive to science nonetheless often provide excellent articles also. The Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/) and Forbes (https://www.forbes.com/) are two of my favorites.
Of course, just reading a lot won’t be enough to make you a good writer. You have to practice. But you have to practice in a disciplined and structured way. What I mean by this is you have to spend some time studying and reflecting about how to effectively write and communicate non-fiction. This is a lifelong process. One is always a student, and you should be constantly improving. I don’t care if you are an undergrad, PhD student, or stately professor regarded as a thought leader in your field.
There are many many books, websites, articles, and workshops on how to write and how to improve your writing. If you were to attempt to take stock of everyone’s advice you would just become overwhelmed and never actually start writing. My suggestion is pick a few good sources, write, read, digest other good sources on writing well, and continue writing. It’s the process that will improve your product, not any specific component of it. To get you started, here are probably my favorite three (so far) …
“Writing Science in Plain English” by Anne E. Greene. This is a fantastic ‘to the point’ no beating around the bush guide for scientific writing.
“Writing to be Understood: What Works and Why” by Anne Janzer. Coming from a marketing background, this book provides really good insights into the cognitive basis for what makes good non-fiction writing.
“On Writing Well” by William Zinsser is an absolute classic, and as relevant today as when it first came out. There is no better guide, in my view, to the structure of language and writing that produces effective non-fiction communication.
If you want a cheat sheet on some of the common themes and take home messages that cut across all three of these books, take a look at the appendix I provide at the end of the article. But I do so a bit reluctantly. You really have to read and deeply reflect on your own what these authors are saying to get the full effect. It will be worth your effort.
A big part for why I started this “Accessible Science” publication is to provide a forum for individuals to practice writing and to publish pieces that educate, communicate, and entertain. This is particularly important for students. I encourage you to write, submit, and use “Accessible Science” as a sandbox to practice writing, to test new approaches for how you are communicating your research and ideas, and to motivate you to write more.
One last suggestion: Read older classical research papers. While these papers were not intended for a general audience, the style of writing and exposition a few generations ago was very different than technical writing is today. I won’t go on a rant (at least here) about how I think today’s writing in primary research sources is often dry, way to formulaic, and down right boring. Older papers seem to expose a freer style of technical writing that is better suited to getting ideas and concepts across. The point here is not to necessarily emulate their writing, but to expand your exposure to good science writing. Take a look at the Historical Manuscripts section of my research website for some of my favorite examples: http://www.silva.ucsd.edu/manuscripts
Writing well is more than just a professional necessity for the practicing scientist. It is the most powerful tool we have to effect change and expand the collective human condition. At the end of the day, the future world will not really know who you were, but they will forever remember what you wrote if it’s impactful enough. So take care in how you write.
Appendix: My cheat sheet before beginning to write
Things to remember.
About the reader …
For complicated or global topics, see if you can reframe the reader’s sense of belonging from a smaller group to a broader one.
Engage the reader as part of the story. Give him/her a sense of belonging. Give them a reason why they should invest their time in reading and understanding my piece.
Cognitive empathy, the ability to take another person’s point of view, helps me understand readers’ perspectives: what they already know and need to know, what they are doing when they encounter this information. You have to write with emotion, not just rationality.
If possible, talk to real individuals about the topic. Assess prior knowledge (assumed and real) beliefs, expectation etc. You might be able to do this in person or via online surveys or interactions.
Need to balance between breadth, depth, and background for my chosen subject. When explaining complicated topics, beware of the boundary between simplicity and oversimplification. Rule of thumb: Get to the important points first, don’t lead with difficult details, but don’t hide them either.
Individual knowledge is remarkably shallow, only scratching the surface of the true complexity of the world, and yet we often don’t realize how little we understand. We rely on a community of knowledge.
Use social media to gauge an understanding of about what do the readers already know about my topic that is correct, what do they imagine they know about the topic, and what do they believe that is wrong or incomplete. Use Google, e.g. what does autofill present for specific queries?
One good strategy: first present a concept in a skeletal way, so the people who only want a high-level understanding get what they need. Then describe the ideas in more detail for the second group, and the first group passes their eyes over it feeling like they understand.
Tell a story! But remember it doesn’t have to be in chronological order. Start in the middle if more interesting or triggers curiosity (see below).
When dealing with a tough audience, remember people fall back on their perceptions when faced with a decision presented in an ambiguous way. You can’t convince them with data and more data alone. Nor with lecturing them. Always remember the emotional reaction you are creating.
During writing …
Don’t cut or delete text during editing. Relocate it. May become material for another piece.
Epistemic curiosity as the positive experience of satisfying a desire. I-type is based on the intrinsic desire to learn, while D-type arises from satisfying an unmet need to eliminate uncertainty, deprivation-based curiosity. To satisfy I-type, offer the promise of fresh information that the reader will enjoy acquiring. Lead with the benefit. To appeal to D-type, induce a knowledge gap: expose contradictions, paradoxes or puzzles or pose an intriguing question. Having activated the gap, fill it.
To create a hook for a knowledge gap, consider the following strategies: novelty, unexpectedness between things, or personal relevance.
The most effective titles do not summarize the writing, they spark curiosity or hint at the benefits of reading.
Two key strategies for an introduction: lead with a benefit or appeal to curiosity.
Identify your target reader …
Occupations
General demographics
Psychographics, e.g. attitudes and aspirations
Political and moral stances
Specific individuals as representative target readers
Identities, beliefs and/or experiences I may have in common with the reader
How will they feel about the topic?
Will they encounter this piece as one more thing to do on a busy day? I need to earn their attention, inspire them to find something useful in the piece. So what is it?
What’s their motivation for reading? Confirm their own opinion? Satisfy curiosity? Career advancement? Difficult situation and looking for answers?
What do the readers already know about my topic that is correct?
What do they imagine they know about the topic?
What do they believe that is wrong or incomplete?
[Notes and excerpts from Anne Janzer ““Writing to be Understood: What Works and Why.”]
Pick a register
Popular register …
“Porcupines are arboreal creatures and in the Nevada region, they live and mate in thick riparian vegetation in which it is impossible for researchers to move quietly. So, although Sweitzer has come close to catching the creatures mating, he has had to settle for stumbling upon the pairs that seem to be on the verge of reproduction — animals that provide only indirect hints about how porcupines find and pick mates. But these clues have been sufficient for Sweitzer along with fellow researcher Joel Berger of the University of Nevada, Reno, to put forward a theory that has earned them some notoriety in the select circle of experts who study this creature.”
This register is typical of popular science magazines that are written for a broad audience. Written pieces using this register often tell a story, in this case about trying to find breeding porcupines. Characters that readers can visualize play important roles, such as porcupines, Sweitzer, and Berger do in this example. The writing is clear and easy to understand, with few technical terms.”
Or
Conventional register …
I tracked the movements of North American porcupines (Erethizon dorsatum) in the Great Basin of northwestern Nevada. I related these movements to breeding activities “during the late summer and fall of 1991 and 1992. Male porcupines are polygamous and defend several females, and I hypothesized that (1) competitively dominant males would have larger home ranges than both subordinate males and adult females, and (2) the size of home ranges of adult males would vary and be positively correlated with breeding success.”
The conventional register is characteristic of clearly written journal articles, theses, and proposals directed at a broad scientific audience. It is more formal than the previous registers, but still clear. It tells a story with identifiable characters (I and porcupines) that do things (track, relate, defend, and hypothesize). It features many verbs in active voice. It is emotionally neutral, and it assumes the reader is familiar with some technical terms (polygamous, dominant and subordinate, hypothesized, and correlated).
[Excerpts from Anne E. Greene. “Writing Science in Plain English.”]
