At the end of May I attended a workshop put on by the Science Media Center group: Science Media SAVVY. Science Media Center, operated by the Royal Society of New Zealand, is a platform where the media can access accurate information about matters relating to science and technology. They also encourage scientists to develop media communication skills to effectively convey their science to a wide audience via the media. This particular Science Media SAVVY course hosted twelve scientists from various academic and professional institutions around New Zealand. A diverse range of disciplines were represented: neuroscience, cancer research, climate change, immunology, pain research, historical mathematics, economic modelling and ecology.
To be honest I approached this workshop feeling a mix of
apprehension and excitement. While I enjoy public speaking and talking about my
research these experiences are always a little nerve wracking especially when
the audience is made up of your peers. My
anxiety rose when I realized, after introductions on the first day, that I was
the least experienced person in the group. Everyone else was well into their
respective academic/professional careers with experience to match. Considering
this I had two options: I could flee the room and never look back or I could
take a deep breath and dive in head first.
With that in mind we soon began our first group activity. Wasting
no time they put us in front of the camera to be interviewed on an unknown
topic immediately. It was the last
thing I wanted to do but when they asked for a volunteer I looked up to see my
own hand in the air. The looks around the table told me that others were
relieved that someone else had volunteered. I thought, “Well, here it goes…”. I
expected the camera to be unnerving and it is. So I concentrated on not talking
with my hands or speaking too quickly. Focussing on the person conducting the
interview I decided to answer the questions (about how I became interested in
pursuing laboratory science) genuinely as if I were explaining it to someone
that wasn’t a stranger. Soon my few
minutes were up and the audience gave supportive applause as I walked back to
my seat. Then the unthinkable happened: as a group, we watched and critiqued my
“interview”. People usually say that they hate the sound of their own voice;
try watching yourself think of answers on the fly. To be fair, this first
interview wasn’t too bad. My answers were well articulated in speech that
wasn’t too fast to understand. Now realize that I didn’t expect to see a
collected person giving reasonable answers to the interviewer. For this reason
alone I think this type of training is absolutely essential. We all have ideas
about how we speak, move and communicate but often we come across differently than
we think. Seeing yourself on camera immediately shows you what is working and
where you can improve/change. This is different than you might think.
Surprisingly, I saw that talking with my hands, as is normal for me, actually added to what I was saying – I would’ve
never expected that. I also learned that I tend to speak quietly and therefore
have to be conscious to project my voice so the camera can pick up what I’m
saying.
In addition to practice in front of the camera we also spent
time preparing a “key message” to describe our research topic in a clear and
succinct manner. Starting with a broad, umbrella-like, topic we then outlined
why the issue matters, what conflicts may arise from it, what solutions are out
there and how do people benefit in the end? I found this portion helpful in
cutting through all the details surrounding my broader topic of “genetic
susceptibility to drug addiction”. As scientists we don’t always have a succinct
and clear way of explaining what we do. This type of exercise forces you to cut
everything down to what is absolutely essential. They had us do it in three sentences. That’s right. Just
three. But what do you know? It is possible. All twelve of us were able to do
it successfully. Now a three-sentence limit was not arbitrary because, at the
end of the second day, we each gave our key message as a pitch to a panel of
journalists from around Wellington. Without fail the panellists were interested,
wanting to know more; they understood our pitches and found them compelling.
Three sentences is possible. A challenge, yes. Impossible, no.
Overall, I found the experience invaluable. It gave me
confidence in that, even though I was anxious going in, I was a collected and
articulate interviewee. It also showed me where I need to practice and work on
responses to questions, especially those regarding challenging and
controversial topics. I would highly recommend this workshop if you would like
to gain experience and confidence working with the media. As scientists I don’t
think this type of training can be underestimated because science is so often
misunderstood. To effectively convey science to others we need to be able to
explain it, without jargon, without elaborate examples and without dumbing it
down. Science Media SAVVY is a great place to practice and prepare. Science
Media Center offers a couple of courses each year and they are happy to have
students participate. So don’t be shy – put your hand up. It is well worth it.
A week after the course I was sitting at my desk when an
email landed in my inbox. It was from one of the journalists that sat on the
panel that reviewed our pitches. That led to an interview for a piece that will
be published in the Dominion Post about my PhD research. While I wasn’t
expecting this kind of response it led to my first real interview experience –
I’m happy to say that it went very well. Having the Science Media SAVVY
experience gave me invaluable presence of mind as I prepared; I knew what to
expect. In the end it led to a great interview.
Bridget Brox, PhD Candidate
Note: More to come regarding the article. I'm having a follow up interview next week to verify my quotes and have my picture taken. :)
No comments:
Post a Comment