Do you remember Mark Twain’s apology? “I didn’t have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.”
The one thing almost all of us wish we had more of is time. So the first rule of communicating with a broader audience is: Keep it short.
You’re looking for the happy medium between a dissertation and a tweet – for both presentations and written pieces. But shorter also applies to the sentences and the words you choose.
Because if you want to engage people who don’t already know your subject, you need to use language they understand.
Academics are trained to go deep, acknowledge all possibilities, and demonstrate their mastery through impenetrable prose. But words like these are eyes-glaze-over material for the general public. They make people outside your field feel stupidThese habits are hard to break.
But words like these are eyes-glaze-over material for the general public. They make people outside your field feel stupid. Using 5-syllables when 1 or 2 would do doesn’t help you change minds or influence behavior.
Let’s say you’re writing a 750-word newspaper commentary. Start by typing at the top “Hi Mom”. Unless, of course, your mother’s an expert in your field. In which case, “Hi Dad” will do.
If you aim your commentary at a non-expert parent, or an intelligent 15 year old, you’ve already vastly increased the size of your potential audience.
For example, you COULD tell people that your research is investigating mechanisms to enhance equity within the pedagogical environment in order to reduce attrition rates.
OR you could tell them that your work is making classrooms fairer so fewer kids drop out of school.
OK, I know what you’re thinking: You spent years mastering that jargon! It tells people you have a PhD! And besides, it’s more precise.
Yes, yes and yes. But save it for your colleagues and the academic journals.
Another thing that will help you communicate with a lay audience? Don’t craft your sentences in the passive voice. “It was determined…” “Subjects were observed…”
Starting a sentence this way makes you sound like a politician. “Mistakes were made.” People want to know who made the mistakes, who bserved the results?
Here’s a useful tip: if you can insert the words “by zombies” into your sentence, it’s passive, and you can probably change it to make it livelier.
To conclude: If you want to engage more people in the stuff you care about, aim for:Everyday words, shorter sentences, active verbs.
And be sure to end your remarks or your commentary BEFORE people have stopped listening or reading.
For University Affairs, I’m Shari Graydon of Informed Opinions.
Great first episode! Bring on the rest!
It’s true that I use jargon in my research papers (defining terms that aren’t widely known), but I’m happy to say that I always aim for and usually achieve the other virtues you mention (or at least am deluded to think so!):
I always use the active voice.
I use the simplest vocabulary (sorry …. words) consistent with expressing the idea at hand (but no simpler! … to paraphrase a well-known scientific dictum ….. sorry …. aphorism …. sorry ….. saying!).
I write sentences shorter rather than longer.
And I do many other virtuous things to express my ideas!
Just promise me one thing, Shari ….. Promise that you won’t advocate presenting one’s PhD research to an audience in 3 minutes. Please promise me that! Getting important ideas across depends as much on having an audience willing to take the time to learn, as on having a presenter using accessible prose …. sorry ….. language!
Cheers,
Reuben
I think I owe Shari Graydon an apology for my comment above. Passages like, “to paraphrase a well-known scientific dictum ….. sorry …. aphorism …. sorry ….. saying!” could well have been misinterpreted as a sarcastic dig at her recommendations for simplifying language in our academic writing/oral presentations. I had no intention to convey that interpretation. In essence, I very much agree with her advice to keep it short and keep the vocabulary as simple as possible. If my comment above was interpreted as (poorly) veiled sarcasm, I apologize unreservedly for that. The problem of misinterpretation often arises, of course, because the facial expressions and body language are not conveyed.
My concluding comment on the 3-minute thesis was indeed meant seriously. I think the concept is lame for the reason I gave. The only value I can see is for the writer to attempt it as a personal exercise in concise communication. But to present these exercises publicly …… nyet!
Reuben, your first comment effectively ensured that I wouldn’t take offence because it started off with disarming praise!
However, as a supporter of SSHRC’s Storytellers initiative (I deliver a presentation skills workshop to the Top 25 candidates, and then serve as one of the contest judges at Congress every year), I’m compelled to defend the exercise. And indeed, I see it as an excellent means of compelling scholars to practice the very strategies that I describe in the vlog, and that you embrace.
Can you do justice to the complexity of your PhD research in 3 minutes? Of course not. But can you demonstrate that it has some value, tell people something they didn’t know before and sufficiently pique their interest in wanting to find out more? Absolutely!
And given the widespread ignorance about the value of academic research, and the anti-intellectualism that allows governments to justify ignoring evidence in favour of politically expedient decisions, that’s a good thing!