Our discussion was prompted by a recent conversation I had with my brother-in-law, who has a Masters degree (albeit not in science) and is the NPR-listening, NYT-reading type. BIL asked about what I do, so I explained that I study viruses and am particularly interested in how the immune response fights viral infection, and how some viruses can escape from the immune response. To illustrate why this area of research is important and interesting, I gave the example of viruses that are never completely cleared by the immune response and can remain dormant until the infected individual becomes immunosuppressed, at which time the virus can re-emerge to wreak havoc.
Afterwards, March Hare carefully and gently suggested that my entire spiel had been completely over BIL's head, and that I had rambled on and on about my work in the stereotypical manner of oblivious scientists while my audience's eyes glazed over. "I DID NOT!!!" was my reaction. Okay, so maybe I did ramble on...just a little. But I don't agree with March Hare that I should have dumbed down what I said even more than I already had for the following reasons.
- I think terms like "immunosuppressed", which March Hare objected to, are used commonly enough in NYT and BBC articles to be fair game even though they may not frequently occur in everyday conversations.
- Dumbing down even further would make the information essentially useless and prompt questions that would require less-dumbed-down explanations anyway. In the past when I've simply said that I study viruses, I am typically asked "Why?", which brings up exactly the same spiel I gave BIL, or "Which one?", the answer to which is actually much more complicated than the spiel I gave BIL. (I'm also often asked in a half-joking manner, "Um...you're not infectious, are you?" That one's only funny the first two times.)
- I hate when people give me patronizing, grade-school-level answers to my questions because they assume I can't understand the real answer. Yes, I do appreciate efforts to reduce the field-specific jargon and to use more general descriptions, but I'd much rather someone overshoot my level of understanding and let me ask for clarification when necessary, than have them tell me something that I already know or is so general as to be uninformative.
- I expect my "audience" to stop me and ask questions if I say something they don't understand. I certainly asked BIL plenty of dumb novice questions about his work in finance when I was confused about what he was saying. After all, isn't the point of having a conversation about a subject to learn something about it? And don't we all learn more when information isn't targetted solely to the center of our comfort zone?
The truth of the matter is that I expected BIL to understand most of what I had said based on what I know of his background and what he himself brought up as topics of conversation (he asked about some new development in HIV research which he heard about on the news). There are many other relatives with whom I wouldn't even have tried having this conversation because they've given no indication of interest. But perhaps I misjudged.
So what do you all do when non-scientists ask you about your work? Do you give generic, non-informative answers or do you try to explain what it is you actually study? And how much do you "dumb it down"?
27 comments:
I have a drama major and an econ minor, and I understood your explanation first time reading.
Of course I do read a lot of science blogs....
I tend to find that it is other individuals in the medical/science field who complain the most about using technical jargon, rather than the individuals to whom I am trying to explain what I do.
When people ask, I try to break it down and explain what a fusion protein it, why it is that the particular fusion protein I study is such a great target, what a small molecule is, and why (and how) I am trying to determine the structure of the protein and use it to create a new small molecular drug. Most people are interested, and while not totally with me, get the big picture. My husband the doctor then starts turning purple in the face and ranting and raving about how what I am saying goes way over their heads and I need to keep it simple.
Now, when in the presence of my husband, I just tell people I cure cancer. It at least keeps me from getting the long "nobody gives a shit what you do" lecture from my "research is boring and nobody wants to hear about it" husband later.
I tend to assess the individual(s) capacity to understand complex ideas (which you did) and go from there. The more capacity I believe someone, has the more detailed the explanation. Regardless of capacity, I do try to use analogies to illustrate a concept but that is probably because that is how I learn / understand new ideas.
As an aside, I think its important that as scientists, we don't dumb it down to the point that the lay person doesn't value the importance of scientific research. The flip side being that we also do not keep it "too smart" such that its difficult to understand research's application to life. Only by having the lay person really understand what we do, will they value it - important when we depend on public funds.
Whenever someone asks me what I study I give something of a broad answer and then determine if they're interested in hearing the more in-depth answer. I'll respond with something like "I'm studying x [biochemical component] in y [organ] of z [species]." Then if they ask more questions, I'll follow up with the details.
Ruchi--Aww...that totally made me feel better! :-) You've commented before on some of my virology posts that you re-read some parts to understand it better, and I think that making the effort to try to understand something new, whether it's science or something else, makes a huge difference.
EtBr--I think you're right...most of the people who've complained about my use of jargon have been other scientists/doctors. I wonder if MDs might be particularly sensitive to this because they have to explain medical terminology to patients all the time?
ScientistMother--I completely agree about the importance of conveying both what we do and why it's important to non-scientists. It is hard, though...I talk to other scientists all day and sometimes it takes quite a bit of effort to turn off the scientist-speak.
El--I agree that giving a broad answer is definitely the place to start. I've discovered over the years that giving the "this is why my research is interesting" explanation upfront is also useful--it pre-empts the "Who cares?" comments later on!
I used to let the other person take the lead - so I'd start off by saying "I'm a research scientist" or "I do research at the Cancer Agency", and determine how interested they REALLY were by the follow-up question(s). If they seemed to genuinely want to know more, I'd usually ask them what level of biology they had. No-one was ever offended by this question, but I've heard of people being offended by the assumption that they know less than they actually do.
The classic example of the latter came from a friend who used to work with vets. One vet was explaining a surgical procedure to a horse's owner. She started off with "imagine the heart as a muscular bag" and continued in this vein (hehe) for a while. The owner eventually managed to get a word in edgeways and said "I really must tell you something. I'm a cardiovascular surgeon at [large local hospital]. Cue a very red face and an apology...
"Dumbing down even further would make the information essentially useless and prompt questions that would require less-dumbed-down explanations anyway. In the past when I've simply said that I study viruses, I am typically asked "Why?""
Some people refer to this process as a "conversation". While less efficient in disseminating information, I hear it is preferred in some social situations.
I find that if you start with a basic statement, people who are interested can ask appropriate questions, and people who aren't can change the subject to the Red Sox.
I pretty much use Cath's approach. If someone asks, I say I am a chemist.
Instead of getting follow up questions about my work, I usually get--about 99% of the time--the response of "I hated chemistry when I was in school." ;-)
Cath--Yeah, that's what I do with people I'm meeting for the first time too. But in this case, BIL already knew I was a research scientist, so I figured that wasn't going to be a good answer! :-) And that story about the vet is hilarious.
Chuck--I don't know about you, but I don't consider forcing the other person to ask obvious questions by making uninformative and largely meaningless statements to be "having a conversation".
Mad Chemist--Oh, that's too bad. I actually really liked Organic Chemistry--it was one of my favorite classes that were not in my major. So if we ever get to meet, you can tell me you're a chemist and I promise I'll ask follow-up questions!
MH, yes I do usually have to read your "viruses are cool" posts over a couple times before I understand it. But your explanation of what you do seemed fairly understandable for someone who reads the NY Times science pages.
I'm actually impressed that you are willing to go into depth as to what you do. I'm really bad about that. People tend to find my job faaaaaaascinating, but I get very tired of the schpiel of what exactly I do (also it never makes sense to people anyway). It'll be weird to be going into a new field that people will probably find way less interesting!!
I grapple with this a lot with my extended family members, all of whom are smart as all get-out but most of whom are humanities types. They want more than the basic sentence, but it can be hard to figure out how much to say without it turning into a monologue lecture!
So I mostly behave the same as I would when tutoring a student one on one: I say a sentence, try to gauge from the furrowed brow how clear it was, adjust plans for next sentence accordingly, and repeat.
EtBr--Wow. Hopefully your hubby doesn't say that your research bores him, too! That would be sad.
Mamma mia... this is a touchy issue for me, for I never, ever know what to answer when people ask me what the ... it is that I am working on.
I do not seem to be able to find a happy medium. Either I dumb things down to a point where it is hard to tell whether I am actually serious, thereby not really conveying even a hint of the part of my work that is most exciting to me, or, if I even try to delve into the specifics I immediately lose everyone.
Fundamentally, my problem (I think I can say our problem, I am sure most physicists would agree) is that while most people have at least some nebulous understanding of what a virus is (in concept, if anything), quantum mechanics simply does not belong to the accepted body of knowledge of a well-read person.
Indeed, I started blogging hoping that I would eventually write about it too, but opted instead for my adventures with swiss washers...
Huh! When I dumb things down too much, people assume I can fix their computers. So until I get a "No, I will not fix your computer" shirt, I will err for my explanation going over their head :P But I will keep it short and sweet unless they ask questions, in which case I do my best to explain what I can.
Now, when in the presence of my husband, I just tell people I cure cancer. It at least keeps me from getting the long "nobody gives a shit what you do" lecture from my "research is boring and nobody wants to hear about it" husband later.
It's funny, for me it's the opposite. If I try to take the easy way out Mrs Okham will chime in with something like "Oh, you know, he studies how particles exchange some virtual ... things and and and... just disappear, only to re-emerge later on in a parallel universe, except that they are upside-down... come on, tell him, honey...".
Yeah. Sure. I can totally pick up from there...
Ruchi--I guess I can't really blame the people who find your job fascinating...after all, I had been obsessing over it for a couple of months before you told me what it was! And I find your new field pretty interesting too, so don't think you're safe from those questions now! :-) I guess how willing I am to go into the details of what I do depends somewhat on who I'm talking to. But it's like ScientistMother said--taxpayers pay for our research, so I figure we should take the opportunities to let them know that we're actually trying to do something useful with their money.
Dr. J--I think many fields are so specialized that no matter how smart the audience is, the college-level science courses they took just don't provide enough background to allow them to understand the research in any depth. Most of my relatives are interested, but get impatient with the background explanations really quickly.
Okham--What Mrs. Okham says to "help" explain your research is hilarious! Does the "upside-down" part refer to electron spins or am I completely off-base? Anyway, March Hare leaves me to fend for myself in describing my research, as I do when he's describing the technical details of his work. It's only when we get to the complaining about our bosses/co-workers part that we chime in for each other! Oh, and BTW, washing machine disasters is definitely a more accessible and relatable topic for most people than quantum mechanics. More washer stories!!!
ScienceGirl--Oh, no...I suppose that's the downside of being in a field that most people think they know something about. I bet there are T-shirt making kits that you can use to create your own "I won't fix your computer" shirts! :-)
Does the "upside-down" part refer to electron spins or am I completely off-base?
Spot on ! You have done your homework, eh ? :-)
Heh...I guess this means I did pay attention in some of my non-biology college classes after all!
Okham, I have to say that I didn't understand what the hell you were going on about when you accidentally IMed the wrong person the other day. Although I assume you thought you were addressing a fellow physicist.
I usually start with a one-sentence overview of my research, then get increasingly more descriptive if the person is still interested. I almost have a script. I am much more guarded with my initial statment than I used to be though, after an experience with guy in a bar who was trying to hit on me. He asked what I did, I explained a little, and he responded "you don't really believe in global warming, do you?" Needless to say, that didn't get him very far with me!
Okham, I have to say that I didn't understand what the hell you were going on about when you accidentally IMed the wrong person the other day. Although I assume you thought you were addressing a fellow physicist.
Yeah, I know what you mean, I have tried in the past to impress young ladies with sweet talk of weak first-order phase transitions and for the most part it did not work...
EGF--Someone once asked me why virologists don't do viral infection experiments on human prisoners. He wasn't hitting on me, but it was still really fucking disturbing!
This is a great post. I just want to add that I am like most people where I start with a general statement and see where it should go from there. I learned early on not to dumb it down because I tried to explain what I did to my cousin as a first year grad student and his answer was, you don't really know-do you?
So I try to aim high and if people get confused I explain what they are confused about. But again I gauge how much information they want to hear or if they are just being polite.
...his answer was, you don't really know-do you?
Ouch...that was rather harsh! Yeah, I'm always a little worried when I'm simplifying the explanation that at some point, it'll just sound like I work on something completely stupid!
"After all, isn't the point of having a conversation about a subject to learn something about it? And don't we all learn more when information isn't targetted solely to the center of our comfort zone?"
I sympathize with that attitude, Mad Hatter. Like others here have said, I used to give just a very general overview of my work for anyone who asked, and then go into more detail only if they asked questions.
In general, though, people do not ask follow-up questions (exception is the physics major and high school science teacher in my mothers' group). And as you can probably deduce from my latest blog post, my family has NO idea of what scientific research entails, and does not particularly care.
Bean-mom--Honestly, I think the only reason I get follow-up questions is because people want to ask me about their latest bout of flu-like illness or the weird virus outbreak they heard about on the news. The only person in my or March Hare's family who remotely understands my work is one of my uncles, who is a developmental biologist.
This may or may not be generally applicable, but my response is always, "I make drugs!"
And then when the laughter subsides, i say, "but i'm supposed to call them medicines."
And THEN if people want to know more, i discuss the difference between research, development, and manufacturing. Can you come up with an amusing tagline that makes people want to know more, while simultaneously gauging their ability to get the small details and the big picture? Similar to scientistmother and cath@?
Also, my resonse completely eliminates all of the "i hated chemistry" stuff that The Mad Chemist gets. That's a huge part of why i stuck with it after accidentally discovering it.
Yttrai--I love the "I make drugs" answer! I actually do have a humorous answer to the "What do you do?" question which I use with people I don't know. Unfortunately, it would totally give away my exact research field, so I can't divulge it here....
Post a Comment