Suzanne’s “Logic” Approach To Science Communication
April 2013, SCOM 408
Suzanne Claessen
A couple of years ago I read a graphic novel. It was a colourful book with entertaining
pictures yet dealing with a heavy philosophical topic. It was Logicomix: An Epic
Search For Truth, a semi-fictional story based around the life, challenges and findings
of logicist Bertrand Russell. I would have never known this book or wouldn’t even
have an interest in reading it if it wasn’t for my friend Reinier who was studying logic
at the time, and became excited about the Logicomix. He warmly recommended it to
me. I borrowed the book off him and with his enthusiastic voice in mind I started
reading.
I found myself surprised at two things. I have always loved comics and
graphic novels, but never before had I used this medium as a source of information,
especially not information that I’m not particularly interested in, in the first place. Yet
I found that the images and the characters immediately swept me into the story and
made me eagerly interested in logic. I became intrigued with the topic: How does it
work? What are they trying to achieve? I suddenly felt that feeling that I often get
when I’m terribly interested in something: a hunger for more.
Secondly, I realised how important the recommendation of my friend was to
me. Out of so many media and topics to choose from these days, it can become hard
to know what to read, what to be interested in even. In those days I felt that I
constantly needed to divide up my life in either “educational” things to do, or
“entertaining” things. Here I was introduced to both of these aspects at once – a great
way to spend time. But what I especially enjoyed was the fact that I knew that my
friend had read this novel as well, was excited about it, and couldn’t wait to exchange
thoughts and opinions about it. And this is exactly what we did. We showed each
other our favourite parts, drawings and exclamations, but mostly we were trying to
help each other digesting the subject matter of logic. By discussing the topic together
we achieved a better insight in the theory of logic, which was a satisfying and
bonding experience.
I want to use this example as a framework to illustrate a few issues in science
communication. Even though strictly speaking logic is part of a philosophical stream;
it does follow a scientific, systematic way of thinking. In this essay I’m going to
discuss the importance of entertainment and enjoyment for communicating science
and how story-telling mediums like graphic novels are a good way of doing this. I
will also show how these factors have their downsides. I will illustrate these issues by
exploring a number of things communicators should be aware of; and the specific
possibilities graphic novels provide. Also, I will emphasize the importance of social
context and community for effective communication. I’m going to look at science
communication from the point of view of the communicator as well as the public. I
will base my statements on secondary literature, a seminar from communicator Beth
Karlin, as well as my own findings of how I personally became engaged with science.
I will conclude with a few future recommendations of how I would like to approach
science communication.
I have always seen myself as an “alpha” person rather than a “beta” one – and “alpha”
didn’t include science. This is mainly due to my great failures in high school in
subjects as physics and chemistry. “I can’t do it; my brain isn’t made for it” are
thoughts that prevailed in my head. My mother who always said that I inherited that
“brain-type” from her also supported these thoughts. Also, I never really had a clear
idea of what science can encompass; how broad it can be. In my head, science
equalled difficult formulas and calculations. I ended up at university studying
literature, language, museums and philosophy and I felt quite pleased I had removed
myself far from what in my head counted as science.
This is a great example of how social context and life history can limit an
“open mind” and beliefs in ones personal capabilities. To a great extend capabilities
determine confidence and interest. When one struggles and seems to “fail” in a certain
field, enjoyment is easily destroyed - and when there is no enjoyment, interest will
soon fade as well. Social context can also give an insight in how science can become
a threatening set of disciplines for some people, when they are not part of a scientific
community themselves. For a long time I have felt that science was exclusive and
difficult, not meant for the masses and not meant for me.
I don’t want to dive too deep into the question “what is science?” but I do
want to articulate that over the years I became convinced science isn’t just about
difficult formulas and it doesn’t have to be exclusive and threatening. The Logicomix
was an eye opener, because for the first time I felt I was tackling a difficult topic, I
wasn’t alone in it, and it was even fun! This gave me confidence for looking at other
alternative ways of learning besides school and university. I realized that I could learn
about a variety of sciences that previously seemed inaccessible, and even though it
wasn’t directly academic, it was still valid.
So my mission continued. I have always had a great interest in the natural
world, but up until a couple of years ago this seemed threatening as well: biology and
ecology are sciences that I hadn’t learned much about either. After living and growing
up in an overcrowded, over-urbanised place (the Netherlands) where I chose to
immerse myself in literature I felt quite far removed from the natural world and its
sciences. I wanted it to change.
My move to New Zealand was partly because I felt I could explore my interest
in nature to a fuller extend in this country of dramatic landscapes surrounded by
oceans. I started hiking and taking photos, and later on I took on some volunteer jobs
to help conserving native species. Through hands-on action like planting trees I
started to learn about soil quality, plant growing conditions, ecosystems where plants
and animals are depended on one another and the threats and solutions made possible
by humans. Wikipedia and basic (picture) books about nature in New Zealand
provided simple clear language for questions that I had, but mostly I learned from
doing, and listening to advice from people that were standing right next to me.
Here I would like to draw a few parallel lines with my experience with the
Logicomix. First of all, in both cases I was taking on the role of public to whom
science was communicated to. I was part of a community that led me into science and
helped me understanding it. In case of the Logicomix the community merely consisted
of me and my friend, in case of my conservation work the community consisted of
knowledgeable, involved people that were keen to teach me in exchange for my help.
If I hadn’t been part of little communities like these, science would have always
remained daunting to me.
I had this realisation when I was listening to a seminar of communicator Beth
Karlin. She emphasised how communicators are likely to have more success when
they approach communities and groups rather than a group of random people. When
you talk to a group of school children for example, they have the opportunity to chat
to each other in class after the talk, whereas random people will just part ways and
carry on with their own lives. Groups and communities provide the ultimate
opportunity for discussions, asking questions and exchanging opinions. In case of the
Logicomix it became clear that I needed “the group” (my friend) to get science closer
to me. A group can provide guidelines, comfort and a sense of belonging from people
that feel like equals. You value their opinions; they are not just random. My friend
encouraged me to be interested in this topic and I could ask him questions about
things that I didn’t understand; and even though we didn’t solve it all - we discussed
and laughed. We were talking about a graphic novel after all: a very entertaining and
accessible medium.
This brings my next point: the importance of the medium. Again, I want to
refer to a point Karlin argued for in her seminar: communicators shouldn’t feel they
have to make a choice between “group” and “medium” when communicating science.
A combination of both works excellent. And both these factors have been crucial for
me. If my friend had encouraged me to read a textbook about logic, I wouldn’t have
done it. The medium is the key to achieve an entertained audience. When you want to
reach a public that was not necessarily planning to be informed but more to be
entertained, an enjoyable medium makes it possible to hit two flies at once.1
The effects science communication can have on an audience are diverse.
Communicators can make people more aware of certain issues (Public Awareness of
Science); or make them understand matters (Public Understanding of Science); and it
is even possible to engage people to the extent that they are willing to take action.2 In
case of the Logicomix, the effects didn’t extend as far as involvement, but it certainly
made me aware of certain issues. For example, I became aware of people behind
important discoveries. Sometimes you can forget that behind the science always hides
a person with feelings and irrationalities just like all of us. Also, I gained a better
insight in the science of the logic method. The novel payed attention to the character’s
struggle with scientific method, which brought me to a better appreciation for
scientific struggle and the possibility of conflicting viewpoints.
This notion of “scientific struggle” is an important one. The fact that there is
so much discussion in science may give it away: there is never a final answer. An
“Epic Search For Truth” or “the perfect method” is deeply problematic. There is no
such thing as one static truth. There are different truths and they change, which makes
them only temporary truths. Over time people continue to gain new knowledge and
scientific theoretical insights, worldviews and frameworks change. We have seen
such frameworks (paradigms) make revolutionary changes in the past, and we can
expect radical changes of knowledge for the future.3
What my friend and I have been trying to understand and “solve” in our
discussions about the Logicomix might in the future seem silly (or meaningful!) due to
new insights in scientific method. Even more so, this insight in the non-static nature
of science is especially applicable to my experiences with conservation work in New
Zealand. I came to realise that there are a lot of different ways of doing things, and
that there is a lot of disagreement about what is the best way to practice conservation
and support biodiversity. This ever-changing nature of scientific knowledge makes
science communication difficult.
As a communicator you need to consider these issues. How can you overcome
scientific uncertainty and tell an engaging story that will bring current scientific
1
I will come back to this point shortly, and outline the difficulties and risks of conveying information through
entertaining media.
2 See T.W. Burns, T.W., D.J. O’Connor and S.M. Stocklmayer Science Communication: A Contemporary
Definition. In: Public Understanding of Science 12: 183, 2003 for an exploration of these definitions
3 See McCain and Segal, The Importance of Interim or Multiple Solutions. 79-92. The Game of Science.
Brooks/Cole Company, 1988, for concrete examples what paradigm shifts can entail.
findings closer to the public? How do you make clear that our knowledge isn’t static,
but at the same time it is trustworthy for now?
Another concern for the communicator lies in the relation between scientific
topic and medium. No matter the topic you choose, you can never present a complete
picture. You choose a medium and according to the medium you always need to cut,
select and pick elements that seem most relevant. You have to accept that some
matters are too complicated to dive too deep into; you always need to simplify bits
while trying to formulate them in such a way that you minimise misinterpretations.
You need to accept that in order to create a narrative that is satisfying and entertaining
for the reader you can’t explain things to the fullest extend, because you have to keep
the story going. It is important that the public is aware of this as well. They need to
realise that the information they gain is selected by other humans who have biases and
who have decided for you what they think is important to communicate.
Every medium has its downside. Some allow mostly for entertainment and are
a relatively restricted information source, while other media can provide way more
information but are not as entertaining. The graphic novel Logicomix falls in the
former category. Graphic novels are pretty pictures, a relatively quick read, and they
consist of visual characters that interact with each other, mainly through dialogue.
Visual location is also very important. It would be boring if the whole story would
take place in the same room (whereas in a normal written text it has good potential).
Graphic novels are a good way to display movement in locations. Therefore graphic
novels are vivid and suitable for providing action, adventure and visible progress in a
story.
There is the possibility of having a narrator that will mostly occupy a little
square in the top corner of a picture, but if he speaks too often the use of this medium
becomes forced. There is also potential for internal dialogue of characters; deep
thoughts and questions, but also this has limited use. In both cases, text becomes
dominant over picture while ideally a graphic novel is most vivid when text and
picture are balanced or when the picture is dominant. The graphic novel is a visual
medium.
The difficulty is that in most cases, exactly those narrators and internal
dialogues provide the best ways of getting information across. They provide the
opportunity to explain complicated information and let characters explore new
concepts. The Logicomix has done an impressive job of balancing this out and letting
characters fight over and ponder on the logic method, but thorough explanations were
scarce. Often it was more a combination of statements like “this is how it must work”
“therefore this and this”. It will be different for every reader if they pick up on
instantly, or not (I personally didn’t get it completely). The story must go on to keep
the reader entertained, and this was restricting the logic-storyline, as there were
several side stories in this novel as well. These side stories enhanced empathy for
Bertrand Russell, the main character. They told recognisable tales of family and
romance. The reader gets an insight in his feelings and relationships, which makes
him an identifiable character.
This relates to the last point I want to make about things to be aware of as a
science communicator: the importance of the main character. According to Karlin’s
research, communication reaches the public most effectively when there is only one
“victim”, one person to care for, to identify with. Of course stories have to contain
multiple characters to keep things going, but ideally you only want one character that
you actually care for. When things become too general, and there are too many
characters to care for, it is harder to relate at all. This is especially important if your
communication seeks to engage people and make them do things. In case of the
Logicomix, it perhaps was not the goal of the authors to move people into action, yet
the novel does fulfil these ideal requirements of one identifiable character. This makes
me think that in theory it would be possible to use the graphic novel as a medium to
persuade an audience into action.
Some final remarks. I am making a shift from being “ignorant public” to being
a science communicator. I want to take the lessons of how science came closer to me
and apply them in my attempt to be a science communicator myself. I still feel very
much like a beginner in science but at the same time I think it’s an advantage to be
able to look at science from the viewpoint of an outsider. I’m interested in diving
deeper into the successful and effective methods of communicating that Beth Karlin
currently is investigating. I have found a personal connection in her statements and as
her research is still work in progress, I would like to further explore the importance of
groups, and feelings of bonding for communicating science. Even more so I'm very
interested in using evident story-telling mediums like graphic novels and in
further exploring the relationships between an identifiable main character, the role of
an (external) narrator and their effects on audiences. I’m interested in finding out
whether the graphic novel could be a useful medium to achieve effects that extend
further than awareness or understanding.
Resources
Doxiadis,A., C. Papadimitriou, A. Papadatos and A. Di Donna 2009. Logicomix: An Epic
Search For Truth. Bloomsbury Publishing
Communicator Beth Karlin’s seminar from the Transformational Media Lab, 4 April 2013, in
the Science Communication Annex, Dunedin.
Burns, T.W., D.J. O’Connor and S.M. Stocklmayer 2003. Science Communication: A
Contemporary Definition. In: Public Understanding of Science 12: 183
McCain and Segal, 1988. The Importance of Interim or Multiple Solutions. 79-92. The Game
of Science. Brooks/Cole Company.