I'm nominating this article for the Rosen Prize in explanatory writing. Rules for awarding the prize combine three factors: clarity in explanation, yes, but also underlying complexity of the thing being explained, AND urgency of the subject to the public.https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/09/k-overlooked-variable-driving-pandemic/616548/ …
-
-
Replying to @jayrosen_nyu @unc_citap
Not to mention, and she won't be offended by my saying this,
@zeynep is not a trained expert in virology or epidemiology or anything like that. She is just a rigorous intellectual and a talented social science scholar. And a great columnist as a result.1 reply 1 retweet 35 likes -
Not at all offended. I have the skills to read the scientific papers & talk to experts. I read about 100+ papers for each of these pieces I've written, and then put in a lot of work to produce the knowledge (a lot of it doesn't pre-exist, needs synthesis) and to write it clearly.
3 replies 2 retweets 85 likes -
I'm glad you put it this way. Often when this kind of work is described the term used is "translate," as in translating the scientific literature into plain English. But that's not the right metaphor.
3 replies 2 retweets 27 likes -
Translate? I wish there was ready-made work to translate. *lolsob*. I've been doing a good deal of the putting together myself, and that's why I'm writing these pieces and the people focusing on "translating" science by interviewing experts aren't. Not how it works right now.
2 replies 1 retweet 32 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @jayrosen_nyu and
As is usually the case with women, many assume I merely "translate" what some experts are telling me. Lol. The experts don't agree; the papers are preliminary, and the knowledge is emerging. I'm not a good writer! Not my native language. It's my synthesis that's doing the work.
4 replies 2 retweets 56 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @jayrosen_nyu and
I read all the papers; I judge the methods, findings and statistics; I judge the expert proclamations and discard a whole amount because I judge them wrong; I put implications of many different findings together and I make claims on where the science is... It's not "translating."
3 replies 3 retweets 32 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @jayrosen_nyu and
It's definitely different than being a domain expert in one of the individual fields, and I don't claim to be one. Not sure if it has a name, but I will absolutely claim a form of expertise and skill that's not "science communication." Dunno. Doing it because it needs doing.
8 replies 0 retweets 37 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @jayrosen_nyu and
I don't think you'll find a single word, and it's great to see your distinction on "translating". Is curating + connecting + distilling + adding context, which results in something with greater value for the public discourse (and hopefully change!) than the sum of its parts.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Thank you! And I'm not saying I'm the only person on the planet who can do this, not at all whatsoever, but regular journalists almost never have the training (need to be able to read stats/methods at a minimum) AND a lot of time in their hands AND the freedom to make claims.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.