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
You're also a story-teller. And, as a social scientist, you're able to understand how different kinds of people are driven to make sense of the world (or not), which equips you to tell the RIGHT story at the RIGHT time through the RIGHT metaphors in the RIGHT way.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Aaw, thank you. No false modesty here, but the story-telling/writing is actually my weakest point. I started writing because I have stuff to say; just had to learn to be a better story-teller/writer along the way and I LOVE MY EDITORS who tell me my draft sucks so I can improve.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @jayrosen_nyu and
Well - gratitude for applying your keen analytical mind and understanding of social sciences to this endeavor. COMMUNICATION scholars FTW!
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.