john hawks weblog

paleoanthropology, genetics and evolution

public engagement

  • Education, not television, for science participation

    Sun, 2013-02-17 19:20 -- John Hawks

    Alice Bell comments on the non-interactivity of the most common means of science popularization: "Science on TV: it's not dumb, but it could be smarter".

    I especially worry that science is often rendered as something to be simply consumed by the public. If we're using the metaphor of scientific "literacy", it's "read-only" research. Retelling science for explanatory or entertainment purposes might give us a great picture of what the scientific idea looks like but often removes a lot about how the scientists got to these conclusions. It doesn't show the workings of science or share the more slippery science-in-the-making, meaning it's harder to critique or get involved with (or simply enjoy these processes as entertaining and educational in themselves). I'd like to see an attempt to share the means of production of science, not just sell its products.

    I note that actually participating in science is what we do in education. Transforming a television program from a passive experience to an active one would help transform its nature from informative to educational.

    We can equally come at this from the other side. Why not take education and make broader use of storytelling, filming, and multimedia resources? Frozen Planet and other BBC productions have done much to show how technological progress in filming and broadcasting have enabled cinema-like qualities in long-form TV documentaries. These technologies are also transforming the classroom. We won't have cinema-quality, highly-edited classroom productions, not without a radical reallocation of effort and resources on the part of faculty. But we can produce material that would have been broadcast quality several years ago, and we can make it available anywhere the internet goes.

    The trick is maintaining, or even increasing, the level of interactivity as we engage larger numbers of students online, potentially across multiple institutions and the public. I have some ideas for that, some of which will be rolling out over the next few months.

    Tags: 
    public engagement
    metascience
    outreach
    tv
    science communcation

  • Pseudoscience and TED

    Sat, 2012-12-08 11:08 -- John Hawks

    Phil Plait discusses ("TEDx Talks: Some Ideas Are Not Worth Spreading") a public letter from the TED organizers to their derivative TEDx community: "A letter to the TEDx community on TEDx and bad science". I have criticized TED in the past for promoting Elaine Morgan, who gave a TED talk on her ideas regarding the aquatic origins of human adaptations. Although TED provides a platform that has enabled some scientists to bring valuable work to a broader public, many TED talks have promoted ideas that have either quickly proven wrong (bacteria making DNA from arsenic) or are dismissed for good reasons.

    Plait shares his personal experience and gives a good accounting of how skeptics should approach untested ideas:

    GOOD: “It makes claims that can be tested and verified,” and “It is backed up by experiments that have generated enough data to convince other experts of its legitimacy.”

    BAD: “Has failed to convince many mainstream scientists of its truth,” and “Comes from overconfident fringe experts.”

    These are then followed by a series of “red flag” topics and behaviors that, again, should serve as a warning that what the speaker is saying may not be legit: They are selling a product, they claim to have privileged knowledge, they demand TEDx presents “both sides of an issue.” (That last one is a biggie: In many cases there aren’t two sides unless one side is “reality” and the other is “nonsense.”)

    I don't know if TED will be able to resist the allure of pseudoscientific pitch artists in the future. After all, it is not a "science" conference, and many of the "ideas worth spreading" seem uniquely to appeal to a certain group of woo believers. But this letter is helpful and gives the hope that they will be careful in the talks outside their main conference that they choose to promote more broadly. Now, if only we could get the History Channel to adopt a similar attitude...

    Tags: 
    public engagement
    science communication
    pseudoscience

  • "Hair-pullingly frustrating to read"

    Sun, 2012-07-22 16:44 -- John Hawks

    Greg Downey and Daniel Lende ponder the rhetorical evils of NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman and why anthropologists should be better writers: "Thomas Friedman’s Lessons for Anthropologists".

    The basic dictum of writing – Show, Don’t Tell – is a good illustration here. Writing professors exhort their students to illustrate action and ideas and social situations and so forth. Rather than telling the reader what is happening, they show the reader. But anthropologists often don’t follow that maxim. It’s tell, tell, tell, as if that will really show the reader the truth of the world. In the meantime, the reader’s eyes are glazing over, and they start wishing for something like Friedman. And that’s what they find – Friedman. Because the anthropologists aren’t delivering in this space.

    I have heard similar complaints from all different kinds of academics. The "public intellectual" space is choked with airheads who don't understand science and technology. But I would sound like an airhead if I argued that people would better understand complexity if only scientists could write more like Thomas Friedman. The problem isn't that the 800-word NY Times column lacks content. That's foreordained. The problem is that longer-form pieces, the 4000-word New Yorker variety, have become the province of formula writers like Malcolm Gladwell. Long-form gives space to actually explore a complex idea, but mainstream media has blinkified the format. For now.

    In an aside, I appreciated this passage:

    In the end, anthropology has some basic points – culture, power, evolution, variation. So it can employ the same kind of “well, there are two possible explanations” approach that Friedman uses.

    I've been thinking a lot about these basics this summer, as I was teaching our majors course in anthropological theory. I shaped my course around five "big ideas" of cultural anthropology, and it's heartening to see four of them here. My experience teaching the course has become the core of a manuscript I am writing on teaching cultural anthropology from the biological perspective. I'll share that article here when I have brought it closer to completion.

    Tags: 
    public intellectuals
    public engagement
    open science

  • What's wrong with anthropology?

    Wed, 2011-10-05 23:31 -- John Hawks

    Anthropologies is an online project organized by Ryan Anderson that brings together voices reflecting the state of the discipline today. The current volume has the theme, "Anthropology with purpose". My essay has riled a lot of people already: "What's wrong with anthropology?"

    Academic anthropology in America is complacent, at a time when budgets are falling, academic departments are being closed, and a larger and larger number of people have become skeptical of the value of science. It's time for an intervention.

    We must change not only for practical reasons but for moral reasons as well. Anthropological research depends on the cooperation, interest and goodwill of many communities, both today and in the past. People do not donate their cooperation lightly. Wherever anthropologists do their work, they are lucky to have the help of these communities of people. Whether biological, archaeological, or cultural, our research relies on unique resources that in many cases cannot be duplicated. We bring these things to light, for the broader appreciation and education of the rest of humanity.

    Having our work read by twenty people is an not acceptable communication strategy. Failure to share results broadly betrays the cooperation of the communities who enable our research.

    I argue for three strategies:

    1. Embrace new forms: use technology to change the way we publish our work.

    2. Defend good science, acknowledging anthropology's unique place.

    3. Empower our students: leverage the incredible value of fieldwork by requiring translational work from the beginning.

    A section from this last:

    Making our students more competitive for non-academic careers does not mean turning our back on what we already do well. Our students learn how to think in ways that other students don't. Fieldwork gives our students tremendous advantages that most industry professionals can only look on with envy.

    We should reinforce those essential experiences and make them greater opportunities for engagement. Why are anthropology students going into the field without contracts to write weekly or monthly about their work? Why do our professional associations do not support themselves by becoming clearinghouses for ongoing field reports? Where are the workshops and press kits that will enable our young researchers to build ties to media and communities outside their institutions?

    I've served up some real red meat in this one, and I've been so heartened to see the growing comment stream. A sample:

    I did an honors thesis on applying an empirical methodology to an ethnographically documented phenomenon that won a university-wide social science prize. I was the kind of promising student which anthropology as a field should be trying to retain – someone with ideas, creativity, and able to produce original research early. While an undergrad, I had every intention of continuing on in anthropology. However, after graduating and sitting down to figure out where to apply to graduate school, I discovered that getting a degree in cognitive anthropology would be a pretty horrible life plan if I wanted to have a career based on my graduate training ... From what is now an outsider perspective, the AAA ditching science in its mission statement suggests to me that I made the right decision. Anthropology has already lost intellectual territory to other disciplines, seemingly without a fight.

    Some great names have already chimed in, and I hope that many more will take the opportunity to join the conversation.

    Tags: 
    metascience
    history of anthropology
    open access
    public engagement
    Synopsis: 
    I link to my essay in Anthropologies, which calls for greater engagement by anthropologists.

  • Engaging with the public

    Wed, 2011-04-13 20:30 -- John Hawks

    Alice Bell raises an essential question: "What’s this public ‘engagement’ with science thing then?"

    I’m similarly sceptical about lumping this whole ‘science’ thing together (and in particular, lumping together ‘scientists). Science is big and complex, its ideas about itself vary and change over time. Maybe it should be pluralised to sciences, like publics. Or again, maybe we could just talk about specific people, ideas and approaches. Leave loose talk about ‘science’ to philosophers and advertising executives, and instead focus on sharing what you have particular expertise in, be honest about what you don’t know and think about all the new things you might learn from engaging in a bit of broader discussion about your work.

    Like Bell, I favor much more specificity about the "public" we're addressing. I like "people" much better than "publics" plural, because the effective point of contact is the individual, not the committee. People have many different goals in their interactions and experiences with science. When I bring Sophie to the local planetarium for a show, neither she nor I is the "public". We are people with a pre-existing relationship, looking to deepen that by engaging with the particulars of a science both of us have some knowledge about. Other people have their own goals and experiences -- many of them intent on avoiding science. No form of engagement can bring together all these people without addressing their distinct goals and interests.

    On that note, I very much like Bell's final suggestions -- particularly being receptive to serendipity:

    Don’t be silly about ‘the public’. Remember: knowing your audience and targeting specific groups can be very powerful, but so can the serendipitous connections made by packaging your work as accessibly as audience as possible.

    ...

    There is nothing wrong with a bit of ambition, but be realistic. This means keeping in mind the limitations of your project, including pragmatic concerns like money, time, your professional image and the weather. You are unlikely to change the world. You may not even change any minds, but that doesn’t mean it’s not worthwhile, you may well have helped move towards a bit of world/ mind changing. These things take time. None of them are easy.

    I would add one thing. This final point may sound a little nihilistic. I mean, if you can't change minds, why even bother?

    But at an early career stage, very few people have the moxie to change minds. The point of engagement is to become a better scientist. Like all things, it takes practice to master. It may take many failed efforts to arrive at success.

    You are only a reed. But you are a thinking reed.

    Tags: 
    metascience
    public engagement
    teaching
    politics
    science communication

  • Madison Science Pub profiled

    Sun, 2011-03-06 12:34 -- John Hawks

    Ron Seely of the Wisconsin State Journal has a nice story in today's (Sunday) edition about the Madison Science Pub ("Science Pub organizer taps scientists for informal gatherings mixed with beers"). Now midway through its second year, this event brings a good crowd every month to the salon-like atmosphere of the upstairs of Brocach Irish Pub, right on on Capital Square in Madison. I make an appearance in the article as the guest of the very first event two years ago, and the first repeat guest.

    It’s not exactly a scientific formula but Skip Evans has discovered that if you combine a scientist, good beer, and a crowd of curious people, you come up with a very interesting Sunday afternoon.

    Oh, I think that's the most likely scientific formula of all! Organizer Skip Evans really deserves recognition for keeping this event going so strong.

    Tags: 
    science communication
    public engagement
    Hawks sightings
Subscribe to public engagement

Neandertals

For years, I've worked on their bones. Now I'm working on their genes. Read more about the science studying these ancient people.

Denisova

From a finger bone of an ancient human came the record of a completely unexpected population. My lab is working on the science of the Denisova genome.

Acceleration

The advent of agriculture caused natural selection to speed up greatly in humans. We're uncovering some of the ways that populations have rapidly changed during the last 10,000 years.

Malapa

Just outside Johannesburg, the Malapa site is producing some of the most exciting finds in human evolution. This site is the headquarters of the Malapa Soft Tissue Project.