I’ve recently started reading a fantastic book on a friend’s recommendation called Geek Heresy: Rescuing Social Change from the Cult of Technology. The book takes a look at the culture of technology in human society, with the premise of delving into how technology came to be so highly-regarded as a tool for social change and why this view can be problematic. I’m only one chapter in, but Geek Heresy has already got me thinking about what is likely a central theme: technology does little for social change without the right people to support the change.
Over the weekend, I helped represent EarthGames UW at the second annual Seattle Youth Climate Action Network (Seattle Youth CAN) Summit. During the lunch hour, we let the eager high-schoolers explore some of the games that EarthGames designed over the past year. We followed this up with an activity-packed hour where we guided a dozen students in developing a concept for their very own environmental game!
Now, you might be wondering why these two pieces are in the same blog post. Throughout the event, I kept thinking back to Geek Heresy and how these games are like the teaching tools presented at the beginning of the book. While EarthGames UW was founded on the motivation to teach people about climate change and the environment, the games that we make are just as likely to see the same downfalls as the laptops-in-the-wall presented in Geek Heresy’s first chapter — a lack of mentoring or guidance means less effective or a complete lack of social change.
I’m glad that EarthGames is taking on more opportunities to engage with youth with games and game design. There’s a lot of potential in using games to engage with the public, and even more in using game design to let the public engage with us and each other. I hope EarthGames will continue to foster collaborations with engagement groups to enable change in our society. If I get the chance (and time!), I hope to be able to foster these collaborations myself.
What do you think is essential for social change? How do you go about engaging your community? Let me know in the comments section!
I’ve had the excellent opportunity to be participating in University of Washington’s ENGAGE seminar this year. I encourage you to look around their website, but in short, it is a science communication seminar aimed at giving science graduate students the skills to translate their research into a form that is digestible by a general audience.
To show that we can “walk the talk”, so to speak, we will be giving twenty-minute presentations at Town Hall Seattle. Topics this year range from the ethics of social media data to bio-engineered crops to alien life within Arctic glaciers!
I’ll be presenting my research on dam management, and how math and statistics help both human society and rivers have the water they need even as fresh water becomes more scarce. Be sure to be at Town Hall Seattle on May 12 if you want to hear my talk, but talks will be happening throughout March, April, and May. More details to come soon!
I’m currently enrolled in a seminar on science communication called ENGAGE, and it’s been incredibly informative! The goal of the seminar is to teach graduate students how to effectively communicate their scientific research to the general public. It culminates in a presentation at Town Hall Seattle! Dates are to be determined, but be on the lookout for exciting and accessible talks in a few months!
In the meantime, I did a guest blog for the seminar, which you can find here. While I focused on relating the class assignments to my recent board game exhibition, the same lessons applies to scientific presentations as well. There is only so much time in a presentation, so a real challenge is how to pack everything you want to say into an engaging package without skimping on details? Often in scientific presentations, the temptation is to cram every detail in; after all, we don’t want to misconstrue any aspect of our work, right? Unfortunately, when we do that, our audience only gets the sense that there’s a lot of details, and really loses sight of the story.
I recently gave an hour-long presentation to an audience of quantitatively-focused professors and students. Generally, this crowd appreciates seeing the details behind mathematical models, so at first I thought, “Hey, there’s this really cool method that I’m incorporating, and I should talk in-depth about it so others can appreciate how cool it is too!” Upon further reflection though, I realized that my story wasn’t really about this cool method. It was how I used this cool method to show an even cooler framework for solving a central conflict in dam management – namely, how do we allocate fresh water so that human society can benefit from rivers, without drastically harming the river itself? In the end, I cut most my discussion of the “cool method” and focused on the “cool story” where the “cool method” was a supporting actor.
The result? I got to talk about the “cool method” without it interfering with the overall “cool story”. For the people that were interested in the math, I offered up a novel tool. For the people that were interested in dams and applications, I offered up a success story for an incredibly challenging problem. By dialing back on the accuracy just a bit, I was able to engage my audience a little more, and everyone ended up winning.
The following notes are from the Fall QERM Seminar, where faculty give presentations on their research. This week features Daniel Schindler from the School of Aquatic and Fisheries Sciences (SAFS).
- Ecology happens at massively varied spatial and temporal scales
- Quantitative methods allow us to integrate spatial and temporal scales
- Salmon are not only freshwater resource subsidies, but are also ecosystem engineers
- Time series of water oxygen content contains a lot of info on gas exchange rate between the water and the atmosphere
- Bayesian models can estimate gas exchange rates with orders of magnitude greater accuracy than empirical surveys
- Variation in population dynamics across streams keeps fisheries sustainable (because of fishing portfolios)
- Variability comes from local adaptation in fish and from shifting mosaics of suitable habitat
- Models can (and should!) be used to make science more transparent
I was impressed by the speaker’s example of how models could be used to communicate a scientific result to a general audience. So here’s my question to you:
What should you do (or not do) to make your research more accessible to a general audience?
I was exposed to an interesting idea today that I want to try out: condensing a talk into tweets. Now, I still haven’t got into using Twitter, but I think this is a neat idea. Every few slides (or minutes), summarize the talk in a tweet (140 characters). If I was using Twitter, I’d do this live, but I don’t so I won’t (and it’d probably be disrespectful in a class of 3-5 anyways).
I tend to be awful at concise summaries and explanations (if you haven’t noticed already), so this should be a fun and useful exercise.