Visual Communication: Not Just Smoke and Mirrors

John Maeda spoke at the MIT Media Lab this week about how art can energize science, technology, engineering and math. The event posting says “artists and designers make information more understandable, products more desirable, and new invention possible.”

Even though I missed the talk, the event inspired me to write about visual communication and science. Visual communication’s effectiveness isn’t just smoke and mirrors. Andrew Revkin wrote a post for the New York Times Dot Earth blog on the science of engaging the whole brain. The gist of the message: multimedia and visual communication help us grasp concepts and information that we might not understand otherwise. Revkin challenges data visualization experts “to find ways to envision, literally, that vague but vital concept called public health.”

Paper pollution image by J. Henry Fair

Here are some examples of eye-catching visual communication:

Visual Science depicts patterns of paper pollution

Information Is Beautiful asks why the Wall Street protesters are angry

Breathing Earth shows global warming, birth and death rates

John Kyrk animates cell biology

Keep an eye on the Information Is Beautiful contest, where designers are developing ways to show the world’s non-renewable resources in multimedia format.

Translating Science Is Translating Culture

When I jazz information up to present it in this blog, I’m aware translating science can be risky. When I started introducing myself as a journalist at parties, some people backed away. There’s a perception that professional communicators aren’t trustworthy – and that polishing information for presentation makes it less real or less reliable.

I put some grit into the branding for this website because I am used to working with skeptical factory workers and scientists who distrust marketing’s varnish and gloss. I wanted to show people who value authentic and direct presentation of information that I do speak their language.

However, even though I speak their language, I still polish it. This puts me between multiple cultures. I see “facts-only” presentation as a statement of its own – either a statement that the presenter hasn’t had communication training or a statement that they are speaking to an audience which values facts.

There is no completely objective way to present information. One can seek facts supporting multiple viewpoints; that’s balanced journalism. But using the formats and buzzwords that convey scientific neutrality is a cultural statement; one could put data in Comic Sans font without changing the facts.

Marketers and nonprofit professionals have their own buzzwords too. The use of the word “outreach” instead of “marketing” is my favorite example of how social justice organizations avoid advertising language. This poses a challenge for me when I am thinking about advertising, branding and promotion for nonprofits.

Information technology (IT) buzzwords are especially difficult to translate. I’ve had several conversations with nonprofits in which I explained the value of crowdsourcing (as well as its occasional disadvantages). Other concepts, such as research database sharing, are less easy to describe. For nonprofits with few resources, sharing databases internally or externally makes sense, but this resource sharing doesn’t happen very often in organizations I know.

I organize a meetup, NetSquared Boston, with the goal of sharing information about media and technology innovation with Boston nonprofits. This meetup is one example of IT resource sharing. But it’s difficult to promote ideas like this when IT vocabulary is new to nonprofits.

While buzzwords can establish credibility, I believe competent researchers should also be able to translate their work into simple explanations. In my conversations with scientists, I find that they do this with their families and friends often.

Science translation is an ongoing and enjoyable challenge. But it isn’t just a translation of science; it’s a translation of workplace culture and values. Translating culture is a much more complicated art than simplifying vocabulary.

I learn from each encounter with a new culture and value those experiences.

The Powerpuff Approach to Energy Efficiency

The Powerpuff Girls have decided to take on an energy efficiency challenge. Well… not exactly. I’m sorry to say there won’t be an episode showing the Powerpuff Girls breaking light bulbs and replacing them with CFLs.

Fortunately, since the Powerpuff Girls are busy taking leaps in the air instead of promoting eco-friendly behavior, a California nonprofit, Zilowatt, is designing energy conservation education for grade school students. The New York Times profiled the program recently. The article featured the superhero graphic below.

Zilowatt's superheroes (Source: Zilowatt's website)

This image implies that the grade school students are Powerpuff-like superheroes – saving electric power and having fun at the same time. This group of kids of varying ethnic backgrounds and appearances is using energy for positive purposes.

SmartMeme and Adbusters take a similar approach to existing ads and media frames – except that they dismantle their messages instead of building on them.

Although entertainment-based education isn’t new to social marketers, approaches like Zilowatt’s are relatively unusual. Of course, saving energy is a serious process and should never be adulterated by using humor, putting cute stickers on CFL boxes, or writing tongue-in-cheek blog posts about social marketing.

The Real Science News Cycle

I forwarded this comic about science news to a journalist the other day. But then I took a second look at it.

At first glance, the process seems simple. A scientist unearths valuable, complex information. The university PR department simplifies it… and the story goes downhill. At the end, the scientist’s grandmother is wearing a hat to protect herself from his discovery.

The Science News Cycle. © Jorge Cham

After reading the comic, I realized I disagree with it. Often, in my experience, the process looks like this:

1. The scientist’s grandmother already has an opinion.
2. The scientist, publicist and reporters see their work as a one-way transfer of information. They don’t consider how audiences with preexisting opinions will respond to the story.
3. The bloggers seek news that will confirm their preexisting views.
4. The scientist’s grandmother shakes her head. Her belief has been reinforced. She goes online to buy a hat.
5. At the end of the story, the scientist goes to ask a federal agency for funding. The agency leaders were appointed by politicians whom his grandmother elected. The scientist hopes the agency will make the right decision.

From the scientist’s point of view, the translation failed. From my perspective, the scientist and the publicist missed a chance to change the preexisting beliefs of their audiences. If there are misconceptions out there already, putting facts on the table may not be enough to change public perceptions of science.

Can Humor and Science Communication Mix?

“Why does it seem so taboo to be funny when talking about sustainability?” Larry Washington asks in the Shelton Group environmental marketing blog.

I think about this question often. Because I’ve spent so much time with science professionals, I have some insights about why humor might seem jarring to them.

When scientists meet marketers, they tend to be cautious and skeptical. Scientists understand that marketers can sell their ideas, but the suggestions jolt them out of their comfort zones. If the marketers don’t produce numbers that show their outreach ideas will work, the scientists may discount the suggestions.

Scientists are cautious for a good reason; they have a great deal to lose. They value their professional reputations very highly. If someone has worked for 10 years to complete a Ph.D. and has gone on to build a portfolio of publications, that person is not going to want to throw away the credibility he or she has worked so hard to build.

Scientists work hard to construct their reputations. So asking a scientist to put humor on a website can be like asking an architect to put an explosive under a newly completed building without knowing whether it will detonate or not.

Marketers should communicate to scientists that humor and other expressive forms of writing can be used in ways that are both professional and credible.

Although humor can increase public interest in science, it can backfire and reduce scientists’ credibility. In some settings, addressing this concern directly might help to resolve the problem. Involving scientists in the outreach process – for example, inviting them to tell stories, make podcasts, or participate in video projects – is another way to build support for nontraditional communication.

In person, scientists do appreciate humor – despite media stereotypes that say otherwise. They are often good storytellers, especially if they teach. But these stories don’t go into their public portfolios. Their official presence says, “Just the facts.”

Why I Use Concrete Language in this Blog

“Concrete” has become a favorite word of mine this year. If I keep using it often, I may have to look for a synonym in Word Spy.

Why do I love the word “concrete?” It’s not because I am from Chicago. It’s because my experience translating science has shown me the disadvantages of relying on abstract language.

I spent many hours during graduate school translating research into teaching tips to help professors increase the diversity of the science workforce. The resource book we produced recommends using case studies and making education more interactive.

In environmental and public health contexts, abstract language sometimes falls flat. This can disappoint people who communicate science to other audiences.

Abstract language doesn't stand up as well as one might expect.

The Shelton Group posted a story which shows how effective firsthand experience can be – even for people who may think in abstract terms. Dr. Don Berwick, head of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, took a direct approach to motivating hospital staff to improve safety. He asked them to learn the personal histories of patients who had died in their institutions. Seeing the safety statistics concretely – not as numbers in a report – moved the staff to change their behavior.

Although numbers play a central role in environmental and health communication, adding concrete details can make these numbers come alive. Connecting stories about science to practical reality can heighten their interest and increase their impact.

Why Science Outreach Can Support Diversity

Reading Unscientific America was an eerie experience for me. This book is more disturbing than most of the news I read online.

What bothered me most wasn’t the waning support for science research and science journalism. It wasn’t the social distance separating scientists from most people in the United States, either… although that is part of the problem.

Because of my experience writing about diversity and science, I took the ideas a step further and reached a disturbing conclusion. When they avoid communication, outreach and interdisciplinary thinking, science organizations may be unintentionally and effectively excluding a very large fraction of the population: women and people of color.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that some minority-serving universities in the United States base 20 percent of science professors’ tenure evaluations on community service. At other universities, that expectation would be unusual.

Some research says women turn away from science majors because they don’t believe scientists help people. This stereotype isn’t true; anyone who watches TV shows like ER or CSI will see science majors saving lives.

Science doesn't necessarily look like this.

If the dominant message says scientists don’t care about the rest of the public, that could contribute to public apathy about science funding. The authors of Unscientific America make a persuasive argument that we should train scientists to do outreach – and fund full-time jobs for them in that field later.

Here is the message I’m concerned could be countering attempts to diversify the science workforce:

If you enjoy communicating or want to contribute to your community, don’t choose a science major.

I blog about the personal, everyday relevance of science because I know these stereotypes don’t reflect reality. In one new industry – green technology – there are signs that women are taking an interest in science because they see their work as a social contribution.

Science is everywhere. It is relevant. It changes the world around us all the time. Science is everyone’s story.

Social Media Make Science Writing a Two-Way Conversation

Social media are changing the dynamics of science communication. If you visualize communication as a flow chart, the arrow is no longer pointing in just one direction. Here are some examples.

1. User interface design research shows how much readers appreciate audience-oriented websites. When the creators of Facebook wanted their site to become popular, they didn’t design a website with pages for each of their departments; they focused on user interaction. Audience goals and interests determine the site design.
2. Social media outreach requires time; it is an ongoing community-building project. In the past, organizations would post reports online and expect readers to track them down. Today, many readers seek out groups that will communicate with them. Static content isn’t as attention-getting as it was a few years ago.
3. If you’re interested in science or research but don’t have a degree in the field, you can participate in online citizen science projects, wiki writing and crowdsourced fact-checking. In the 1980s, these opportunities didn’t exist yet.

Changing the social dynamics of science has both positive and negative effects. Unscientific America points out that there are many unreliable sources competing with more accurate ones for air time. Reviewing content collaboratively can address many of these issues, but quality control is also important. Some websites, including Quora, are making sustained efforts to provide reliable answers. If someone posts on Wikipedia that a UFO landed at the royal wedding in Britain, it’s likely that an editor will fix the entry.

Design and Engineering: Similar Skills with Different Reputations

Although there are real differences between art and engineering, the social gap between them may be due to misconceptions. The impersonal and equation-oriented image of engineering doesn’t reflect what engineers do at work.

As I commented on an article in The Atlantic:

Since I spent so much time in machine shops and garages during engineering school, I’m not sure that there really is a solid line one can draw between engineering and hands-on activities.

When I took art classes, students there were doing the same activities that I was already doing at the machine shop. Math classes use visualization and design skills frequently. And engineering is much more about problem-solving than memorization.

In other words – art and theater tech majors do many of the same things engineering and math students do…. but they end up with different jobs later.

The article encourages educators to value 3D design skills. I agree that 3D skills matter – but not just to designers and architects.

As a college freshman, I realized I would need shop skills that went beyond anything I learned before college. I’d been using art supplies and building small objects since grade school. As a high school student, I’d learned more about woodworking and auto repair.  But that wasn’t enough. To expand my experience, I began working in electronics and machine shops.

The day-to-day life of a mechanical engineer involves building and visualizing products continually. Having solid math and computer skills is only one part of that equation.

Design and construction are some of the building blocks of engineering. Intermediate art-related fields like architecture and product design require similar skills and experiences.

Occasionally, I hear people say engineering isn’t creative. But brainstorming is integral to industrial design. Engineers know that if they spend more time and energy in the design phase of a project, that will prevent costly retooling later on.

So, yes – engineers are creative. But the field’s impersonal image doesn’t match that reality. In college, I saw women taking theater tech and art classes and learning to solder, weld, and use shop equipment. My male friends took engineering classes, learned to use exactly the same equipment, and had relatively good job security after they graduated.

I’d encourage other women who are interested in design to consider engineering. My engineering degree gave me access to many resources. Those doors might never have opened if I had an art degree.

How We See Nuclear Power Plant Safety

Edited 4/25/2011: Since posting this entry, I’ve been tracking recent news on Twitter. Here are my updates on the progress of the crisis (in reverse chronological order).

Is Fukushima really as bad as Chernobyl? RT @SciAmhttp://bit.ly/ht2Kny @dbiello

MT @engineer4change: How can a community on a budget prevent damage from #tsunamis? We asked an #engineering expert.http://fb.me/J5t9kuMi

@mongrelized It’s important to talk about the personal stories from the #tsunami. An #earthquake level is just a number.

Japanese Workers Braved Radiation for a Temp Job http://pulsene.ws/1ftqt #fukushima #nuclear @mongrelized

RT @dbiello: now let’s hope pumps work MT @NEI_media: JAIF: Electric lines connected to Fukushima reactors 1 & 2, other reactors to get power Sunday

RT @sciam: one hero named: Michiko Otsuki. @gbrumfiel: Original blog post from Fukushima worker on Strait Times.http://j.mp/hFAEPF

@mongrelized I’m extraordinarily impressed by the workers who stayed at the #nuclear plant in Japan. #momentofsilence

A recent environmental psychology article from the UK says “the risks of nuclear power are almost unique in their capacity to [instill] public concern.” The Sociological Images blog shows public support for nuclear power in the United States has dropped since an earthquake and tsunami damaged a nuclear power plant in Japan this week. Although there are preexisting concerns about nuclear power, I believe it’s likely that this change is connected to the fear inspired by recent news.

These fears may be based on misconceptions about risk. The goal of this post is not to reassure people about nuclear power, but to explain the differences between our fears and what is really happening.

Radioactivity exists around us all the time, but its levels vary. It’s the level that counts. We’re often exposed to small amounts of radiation through food and sunlight, for example. Radiation exposure from human activities can come from having a MRI scan, getting X-rays or taking an airplane flight.

According to the Nuclear Science and Engineering department blog at MIT, after the tsunami and earthquake in Japan damaged a power plant’s ability to cool its fuel, radiation levels immediately outside the plant reached the level of a whole-body CT scan for two short periods of time. (The data are from The New York Times.)

Here’s a summary of health comments from the press conferences at Union of Concerned Scientists this Tuesday and Wednesday:

• The people who are at risk right now are the workers inside the plant. Other people in Japan are not experiencing a significantly higher risk of cancer – yet.
• In the worst-case scenario, if the workers are not able to keep the fuel rods cool, tens of thousands of people in Japan could have an increased lifetime risk of cancer. So far, scientists don’t know what the numbers or percentages would be. In the best case, this won’t happen.
• The scientist who responded to the question did not expect anyone living nearby would die from the short-term effects of the accident. He wasn’t sure about the workers inside the plant, though.
• It isn’t necessary for people who live far away from the plant to buy potassium iodide as a protective measure (which some people in the United States are doing). Actually, buying it can deplete the supplies that people in Japan might need.

People tend to fear short-term catastrophes more than long-term ones. A recent LiveScience article reported 42 percent of survey respondents consider nuclear power unsafe. In comparison, 51 percent of respondents to another recent survey said they worried about global warming often. (Both of these surveys are from the United States.)

If you compare the many risks posed by global warming – flooding, migration, decreased food supply and other hazards – to the risks posed by nuclear plant accidents, it’s striking how close those two percentages are. In proportion, the specter of a nuclear meltdown seems to be more frightening than global warming.

A USA Today article reported that in 2009, close to 34,000 people died in traffic accidents in the United States. Comparing this number to the results of the current power plant accident – even the worst-case scenario – shows our perceptions about risks are sometimes out of proportion to the real hazards.

None of these comments are evidence that we should support nuclear power; that question goes far beyond this post. But we see nuclear power based on the short-term, frightening and visible nature of industrial accidents, not their relative level of danger.