Workshop 2: Fundamentals¶
- How do encourage our readers to read and remember our work?
- Storytelling:
- Find the simple ideas
- Expectations
- Be specific and build with concrete components
- Present believable arguments
- Appeal to emotion
- Storytelling:
Simple vs too simple¶
Simple ideas are easier to follow and remember than complex ideas. A scientists goal is to infer the simple or general principles from complex data and observations. Your task as a writer is to make the reader's job easy (be clear)!
The ideas and concepts your reader understands may be different than yours. To connect, especially to a broad audience, you need to start with shared concepts and build up to more complex abstractions. If you lose a reader along the way, they wont stick around for the rest of the ride.
Expectations¶
To keep a reader engaged in a story, you need to have twists and turns -- something unexpected needs to happen. In science writing, the unexpected is often called upon in the questions posed and developed early in the work, and resolved by the end of the work. The reader should be in a new place by the end of the story, and in the best and most memorable stories that new place is not where the reader expected to go.
Concrete components¶
Data is a good example of something specific and concrete. As scientists, we tend to trust data and observations more than just about anything else. If your reader is not provided a clear picture of what the data is, or how the data was collected, then how are they expected to believe or even read the story you are telling? Ambiguity in writing is one of the quickest ways to lose a reader. Your reader shouldn't have to guess or infer what the author means.
Credible arguments¶
Your arguments must make sense as they connect your story to specific and concrete components. You are faced with connecting the abstract (and ideally simple) understanding gained from the work to very complex and concrete components. How you make that connection is really important. For example, claiming a linear relationship between data that has a very low correlation coefficient.. not credible.
Emotional appeal¶
Curiosity is the easiest emotion to appeal to in science writing. Early and often appeal to the audiences curiosity. After all, they opened your paper because they want to learn something new about how nature works.. harness that!
Workshop tasks¶
Split into two groups and analyze the two nature papers (Dietz 1961 and Vine and Matthews 1963). Where did the authors do good job on the following criteria, and where they could have done a better job?
- Simple vs simplistic: what concepts did the author rely on the audience to know? were they simple enough? did the authors "simple" ideas come through clearly?
- Unexpected: was there anything unexpected in the work?
- Specific and concrete: what were the concrete components? can you specifically identify them?
- Credible arguments: are the arguments and claims believable?
- Curiosity: where in the text was your curiosity the highest?
Workshop tasks¶
Read the draft you have been assigned and identify how the authors used each of the following elements. Offer comments on where the authors did a good job, and where they could have done a better job. Discuss with the authors how they may have improved:
- Simple vs simplistic: what concepts did the author rely on the audience to know? were they simple enough? did the authors "simple" ideas come through clearly? What was the author's main story?
- Unexpected: was there anything unexpected in the work?
- Specific and concrete: what were the concrete components? can you specifically identify them?
- Credible arguments: are the arguments and claims believable? (references?)
- Curiosity: where in the text was your curiosity the highest?
After the workshop (due next Wednesday): Use the workshop discussion to revise your draft. Write a short (a few sentences to 1-2 paragraphs) reflection describing your take-aways from the workshop and your specific goals with the revisions.