Comments on: Plain-language summary of research results: Mites, rotten wood, and forests

By: health

health — Tue, 09 Apr 2013 04:57:33 +0000

Would you be capable of information me personally to your web marketer or the man that takes care of your blog, I’d like to know if it would be possible to be described as a visitor poster

By: Chris Buddle

Chris Buddle — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:13:09 +0000

Thanks for this! I’m THRILLED that my extended circle of friends/family is enjoying this idea of plain-language summaries. You are quite correct – finding the balance with details yet avoid jargon and technical methods is really tricky. And yes, I couldn’t agree more: increasing the scientific literacy of the general population is is important- especially now re: environmental challenges we are facing

By: Rebecca Dickson

Rebecca Dickson — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 16:31:42 +0000

And of course my name is actually Dickson.

By: Rebecca Dicksn

Rebecca Dicksn — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 16:30:56 +0000

I like this Chris. I often look for scientific works to share with students. It’s a challenge to find ones where students won’t miss the signicance of the work because of their difficulty interpreting the language. In fact, when I read scientific works in an area I am not familiar with, I can have the same problem. When I read your simplified version, I immediately wondered how many handfuls of stuff did you collect? Over what area? And what are the implications of this information for the timber industry and particularly for the use of biomass in energy production? I see that you answer these questions to some extent in the actual abstract. To use plain English to fully explain important aspects of scientific research, such as methods, sample sizes, statistical significance, etc., as well as procedures and results, and to provide a discussion of implications of the research that lay people understand would go a long way towards not only informing the public about what scientific evidence has been discovered, but also how good scientific exploration is carried out and why it’s important. Increasing the scientific literacy of the general population will have far-reaching consequences. Plus they would love reading your great blog.

By: Chris Buddle

Chris Buddle — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:41:10 +0000

Michael – this is very fascinating – an interesting and innovative way to think about presentation of a research paper. Thank you so much for comments and ideas. Let me mull things over a bit, but we should talk in more detail!

By: Michael F Kelly (@KellyMike)

Michael F Kelly (@KellyMike) — Sun, 25 Nov 2012 22:55:59 +0000

Ok, here’s the Kelly Meaning Map version of ‘What we found’ from the Mites abstract. Would this be useful? For what purposes? What are its limits? Thanks
http://www.scribd.com/doc/114382986/Meaning-Map-on-Mites-and-Fallen-Tree-research

By: Michael F Kelly (@KellyMike)

Michael F Kelly (@KellyMike) — Sun, 25 Nov 2012 22:41:22 +0000

Seems there should be a different summary for ‘what we found’ vs. ‘what we did’ in a paper, separating What vs How or Why. Here’s an approach using Kelly Meaning Mapping(tm) that we have developed to try to get at the essence. Would this be helpful? Its only done for the What we found.
(Rats! Apparently, I cant insert a PDF here. Look for it in a separate post.) Any suggestions?

By: Chris Buddle

Chris Buddle — Wed, 21 Nov 2012 12:34:16 +0000

Thanks John, for both the kind words and the constructive comments – this is much appreciated! I will work on the parallel structure issue. (there is always room for improvement – and, by the way, writing blog posts is forcing me to practice and write more – a good thing!)

By: John Blois

John Blois — Wed, 21 Nov 2012 01:14:32 +0000

It’s very good, Chris. You have an aptitude for clear writing. I say that having assessed the writing of thousands of professionals in writing workshops (lawyers, accountants, engineers, scientists, bureaucrats). You used a lot of the right tools (normal language, active voice, short sentences). But more than that, at a higher level, you told an interesting story, using a conversational tone, as if you were talking with a friend. That’s a key principal in clear communication. Of course, you also undercut my previous post that people can’t just magically produce clear language without knowing what tools to use and how to use them. Or maybe you’re the exception proving the rule, as research shows 98% of scientists could not go where you have gone (this last part is attempted humor).

Others identified tone and grade-level as things you can vary. Another thing is that some of the sentences don’t use parallel structure. That matters because it tends to trip up readers, interfering with readability (as unevenly spaced stairs tend to trip people).

By: Graham Scott

Graham Scott — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 23:40:30 +0000

But it is accessible and that’s what matters.