January 29 and February 5, 2008
WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES Updates for this course: I will send out emails to participants about any updates, and revise this site accordingly. First meeting: January 29, 2008, 9AM. In this session I will lead a discussion about science writing, including topics such as:
Reading for first meeting: The assigned reading is listed below. Some of it is available on-line. The two books included in the assigned reading will be on reserve at the Kline Science Library beginning the December 4. You might want to consider purchasing both of them; they are excellent introductions to science writing.
(Amazon page: Click Here) 17. Deadline Writing, by Gareth Cook. (p.111) Questions to consider: These three writers describe three very different forms of science writing: short newspaper articles, long magazine features, and essays. What techniques are common to all three forms? What are the most important differences? Do you think that these differences are a matter of convention or reflect the essential rules of each genre? How do these techniques impair or strengthen articles about science? Do any of these techniques apply to other kinds of science communications, such as television or blogs?
Michael Lemonick, Time, “Let There Be Light.” Questions to consider: These three pieces all address science, but in different ways. How does each writer adapt his style to each format? How well does each piece reflect the science? How effectively do you think each one engages its readers? Can you identify some of techniques that the writers use to describe scientific research in ordinary language? FROM IDEA TO ARTICLE Questions to consider: I will give a brief account of writing a long article about one scientist’s research. Compare some of Dr. Couzin’s papers to the article. Does the article fairly reflect his research, and the field in general? Does it indulge in hype, oversimplification, or other weaknesses? How are a series of papers combined into a single article?
Read both of these papers from Science:
Write a 500-word piece about one of them. You are free to choose the style in which you write your assignment. It may be an opinion piece, a piece of straight news reporting as you'd see in a newspaper, or a more creative piece you might find in a magazine. You are not allowed, however, to write a 500-word review that might appear in a science journal. You must write something that a non-scientist would be able to understand (and perhaps even enjoy). Depending on your own scientific training, you may be familiar with one of these topics. I would urge you to choose the paper about which you are least familiar. Science writing requires you to get quickly up to speed on complicated subjects. Also be warned: writing about a topic you know very well raises the risk you will slide into incomprehensible jargon. To research your piece, read the paper, look for any commentaries in the journals, and find background reading for context. Try to find someone at Yale or elsewhere who is an expert in this area who can take you through the research. Writing assignments are due by Friday, February 1 at noon. On Friday afternoon, I will send all workshop students assignments from 2 or 3 participants. All students will be expected to read them by the second workshop meeting. Please write a 100-word critique of each article we will be discussing. The critique should describe a strong point of the article, and suggest a way to improve it.
We will spend part of this session discussing the writing assignment. Most likely, you will have encountered unexpected challenges, which you are encouraged to describe. How did you overcome them? (Did you?) We should have additional time for any topics that students wish to discuss further. One possibility is the “Framing Science” debate. Scientists are currently debating how they should present their research to the public at large and to science writers in particular. For more information, please read “The Future of Public Engagement,” by Matt Nisbet and Dietram Scheufele, The Scientist, October 2007 (NisbetScheufele2007_Framing_TheScientist.pdf); and Framing Science Paper is Deeply Flawed, blog post by Greg Laden (University of Minnesota anthropologist)
|