Writing Clear Science

SUBSCRIBE to the Writing Clear Science Newsletter

to keep informed about our latest blogs, webinars and writing courses.

If science was perfect, it wouldn’t be science

A common claim espoused across social media is the idea that science must be perfect if we are to believe what is says. For example, when arguments are raised against vaccination, GMO and fluoridation of our water supply, science is criticised for not being perfect and that it should not be trusted. There is a clear assertion that scientists should not make mistakes, and when they do, that science itself is at fault.

What do scientists do?

Scientists solve problems, create new things, come up with new ideas, try things that don’t work and work at things that appear insurmountable. Scientists climb mountains to look at lava, swim with sharks to look at coral, dig ditches to uncover fossils, climb trees to study flowers, wear masks when mixing chemicals, stand all day measuring samples, or sit all day crunching numbers or staring at a computer screen. Scientists write, think, teach, create, destroy, argue, worry, mope and get excited. Scientists make new knowledge and dig through old knowledge for new answers or when working out new ways to do things. Scientists disagree with each other and criticise themselves and others and they try to do things better the next time around. They work with ideas, hypotheses and theories, and come to conclusions and make predictions. They are not always right nor do they expect to be.

Scientists are not always certain

What we know about science comes from new research and from old research that is looked at again and again. There are things that we are certain are true; there are things that we are reasonably confident are true; then there are things we expect are likely to be true, while understanding there may be important exceptions. Then there are things that we think may, or may not, be true, depending upon the circumstances. Then there are things we are not really sure of at all but have a vague hunch that something about them might be true. Then there are things where very little is known. We don’t know everything and never will. A great many scientific ideas and opinions may be unsubstantiated or simply wrong. Hypotheses either grow up to be theories or discarded and melt into the background of productive thought. Theories are tougher, last longer and are much harder to break, but still do.

Science is not perfect
Science is a process of looking for answers and working on the best way to find these answers. It is not perfect; it couldn’t possibly be as it is done by humans in an imperfect world. Science doesn’t always find the answers and is often inconclusive and indecisive. When looking at their results, scientists regularly find that their answers are inconsistent or contradict currently-held viewpoints. What we know to be true today may be completely wrong at some point in the future, but this is what science is about. Scientific knowledge will always be incomplete. As soon as we find answers to one problem, up springs 10 more questions that demand attention. The search for answers will always bring new questions and new ways of looking at the world. Science is self-improving and never-ending; science is a work in progress.

Scientists make mistakes
Scientists try things that sometimes don’t work, but the idea is to learn why something didn’t work and to improve the method next time. This is a normal part of science. What is rare is when a scientist deliberately makes stuff up to make themselves and their study look good, in order to preserve or improve their career. The Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research “…advocates and describes best practice for both institutions and researchers…” and “…provides a valuable framework for handling breaches of the Code and research misconduct.”

Scientists can be afraid of making mistakes as the culture of science currently favours short, brand-new studies with exciting results over long-term, repetitive and boring studies that are still scientifically-important. The reports that say “we didn’t find anything” often don’t even get written, let alone published, allowing others to repeat the same ‘mistakes’ when trying to solve a problem. Similarly, I have met more than a few PhD students who spend a very long time worrying about their project ‘not working’ because it is common for studies not to produce the results you expect. It is difficult to do statistics on lots of zeros. Nevertheless the science behind why you didn’t find anything is as important as why you did find something.

The checks and balances of science

There are checks and balances that maintain and improve the quality of research but science itself is inherently rigorous; it has its own inherent checks and balances. The scientific record is research that is written and published so others can check that it was done properly. Ideally, other scientists then repeat or build upon the original study and try to do it better. The peer-review process means that other scientists get to verify that a study was done correctly. The published journal paper in bone-fide journals means that the science community gets to read and further judge whether a study is valid. If they don’t think a published study is good enough, they can write another paper to critique it. Those papers that make a big impact or make it into the higher quality journals get cited more often, meaning these papers are popular with other scientists and become more influential in their field.

Yet none of these checks and balances work perfectly. There are major criticisms of the peer-review system with many suggestions on how to improve the process. There are some papers that get rejected for publishing that shouldn’t have been, while there are papers that get accepted that shouldn’t and some of these get retracted, which means they are withdrawn from publication and are deleted from the journal (The Retraction Watch is a blog that monitors papers retractions and is designed to increase the transparency of the retraction process).

Scientists disagree with each other

There is a lot of trust in science. We trust that most studies produce accurate and reliable results but some studies' findings are based on little evidence or were conducted with incomplete or even incorrect methodology. We hope that these studies will fail the peer-review stage, but they don’t always. Of those that do get published, if the scientific data is not strong, there can be differing opinions on the importance of that study’s conclusions. Nevertheless, below-standard published papers still create important and necessary debate. For example, the paper Neurobehavioral effects of developmental toxicity (Lancet Neurol. 2014; 13: 330–338) that looks at harm caused by fluoridation is critiqued by a paper published in response to this study Neurodevelopmental toxicity: still more questions than answers (Lancet Neurol. 2014; 13: 647 – 648).

Scientific disputes are normal and a necessary part of science. Providing the disagreement is between peers, disputes strengthen science. Disagreement forces researchers to look harder at their own ideas, beliefs and methodology.

There are many ways science can improve: for example, the peer-review process, the amount and extent of scientist training and mentorship, and the amount of funding for training and research. We also need to make is easier for scientists to do their work. The predominance of the publish or perish culture leaves little time for scientists to communicate widely or to do the boring but important work that might not get published in high-quality journals. The lack of funding, tenure and job vacancies means that many months of the year are devoted to preparing job and grant applications of which only a small fraction are successful.

Effective communication is essential

We need science to make decisions about all sorts of things and we usually do not have the time or money to study something 100 times for 100 years. Decisions often need to be made with limited information. Science is not a neat, perfect road map where the direction to home is clearly marked. It is more like the game of snakes and ladders, when sometimes you think you are making satisfactory progress, but something changes or goes wrong and the next step takes you straight back to the beginning.

Yet given the overwhelming advances in science, the drive to do it bigger and better continues. Scientists need the support and understanding of the community and the community needs reliable and digestible information about the impacts of science and technology.

Any suggestions or comments please email info@writingclearscience.com.au

Find out more about our new online course...

SUBSCRIBE to the Writing Clear Science Newsletter

to keep informed about our latest blogs, webinars and writing courses.

Ten ways to get the most out of a writing workshop

If you are considering signing up for a writing workshop, at the very least you will receive a course overview or outline, a statement of what you will get out of the workshop and what to bring. Once the workshop starts, you will then be taken on a series of educational steps to achieve predetermined learning goals. This is the case for both online and face-to-face workshops. While the facilitator will do their best to help you learn, there are important tasks you need to do before, during and after the workshop that will enhance your learning and ensure permanent improvements in writing skills. In my 21 years’ experience running over 300 face-to-face writing workshops (and dozens of online tutorials), I have observed how many different people approach the task of learning. Here are ten ways to get the most out of a writing workshop.

Before the workshop starts:

1. List your learning goals

Why do you want to do a writing workshop? What do you want to achieve? How does your writing need improvement? If you are not clear on the answers to some of these questions then consider how productive and enjoyable you find the task of writing. List any stages in the process of writing where you lack confidence or initiative. When you start and continue through the workshop, you will find that you will gain a deeper understanding of what areas need improvement and how to improve.

Consider your motivation for attending the workshop

Within my workshops, I find that the largest proportion of people are self-motivated, aware that their writing needs to improve and are keen to learn whatever they can. Then there are some who are happy with their writing but want to brush up on their skills and pick up new perspectives and extra tips. With many In-House workshops, there will be an entire team expected to attend, including some people who are confident and capable writers yet still keen to brush-up their skills. Then (very rarely) there are those who are happy with their writing, are instructed to attend by a boss or supervisor but really don’t want to be there. If you really do not want to attend a writing workshop, the facilitator would probably prefer you were not there either. If you are a supervisor reading this, avoid forcing staff to attend if they indicate they don’t want to. Having people in a workshop who don’t want to be there can make it hard for others to learn and reduce the engagement of the entire group. Even worse is a recalcitrant attendee.

2. Come prepared

Triple-check the date and time

As we all know, it is incredibly easy to get dates and times wrong.

Read the pre-workshop information at least a week before the workshop

Thoroughly read everything that is given to you, at least a week prior to the workshop. There may be important information that will help you get the most out of the workshop; for example, you might be asked to bring a summary of your project for a writing exercise. If you only read pre-workshop information the day before, you may not be adequately prepared to get the most out of the workshop.

Email questions at any time

If you have any questions at all relating to the workshop, either before or after, ask them. If you are not clear about what to expect, ask for further details.

You can download my Writing Workshop Preparation checklist here.

3. Complete any pre-workshop surveys or writing tasks

Completing surveys can seem tiresome. However, as a facilitator, I cannot emphasise enough how important it is to know, beforehand, what people want to get out of the workshop. Understanding your science background and writing challenges, and reviewing your questions before the workshop starts, allows for the best preparation for teaching. The more prepared a facilitator is, the more you will get out of the workshop. Even if you mention topics that won’t be covered in the specific workshop you are attending, the facilitator might be able bring along extra resources to help you.

If you are invited to submit a sample of your writing or complete a pre-workshop writing task, do it. Getting direct feedback on your writing is invaluable and writing immediately before a workshop can help you identify what you want to get out of the workshop. Submitting samples after the workshop is not productive as the opportunity to discuss and learn throughout the workshop is lost.

4. Don’t be late or just on-time: arrive early

Triple-check the starting time

If you are late you will likely miss crucial introductory information that cannot be repeated. I no longer wait for late-comers, even if I receive a text from someone saying they are running ten minutes late. While it is good to know that people are still coming, waiting for late-comers disrespects the efforts of those who have gone out of their way to arrive early. Strictly honouring the start time also creates a clean and industrious atmosphere for everyone present.

Aim to be 15 -20 minutes early instead of on-time

If you aim to get to an any event early and there are road closures, lift faults or random buckets of hail, then you still might arrive on time. Aiming to arrive just before the starting time, is optimistic. If you do arrive early, you will have time to settle in and meet other workshop participants before you start.

It’s never ok to be purposely late

Never assume that it’s ok to be late or that the facilitator will wait for you before they start. People who turn up to a workshop 20 minutes late without showing concern have probably perfected the art of arriving late. I expect the habitual late-comer thinks this way: “It says an 8.45 am start, but they only say that to allow for late comers, which means they will really start at 9.00 am and even then, there will just be 10-15 minutes of an informal welcome and chat and they probably won’t actually start until 9.15.”

If you are unavoidably late or unable to attend at all, text or email the facilitator.

During the workshop:

5. Participate: ask questions and make comments

Asking questions is the most important thing that you can do during a workshop. We learn by listening, thinking and doing. We also learn by working out what we don’t know. In any workshop environment, those who readily ask questions and make comments add immense benefit to the learning atmosphere as their participation encourages others to also engage by asking questions and making comments. If you don’t understand something, ask for clarification.

Some people are worried that their question will be out of place, not immediately relevant, mundane or too obvious. Don’t worry; invariably others will also want to know the answer to your question. A good facilitator will answer all kinds of questions and place the answers in context to the workshop topic. Facilitators also use questions as opportunities to reinforce important principles.

If you don’t understand something and want it repeated, ask. If your mind wandered and you missed what you thought was a crucial point, ask for it to be repeated. Don’t worry if you feel you are the only person that doesn’t get something; even if that were true - that’s ok. You are there to learn. If you want to know how a principle might be applied in different circumstances, ask. If you think a suggestion might not work in your circumstance, say so. Your comments might open up a fruitful discussion with other attendees.

Don’t worry if you feel a bit shy or nervous about asking questions, ask anyway. The facilitator aims to ensure that everyone in the workshop feels comfortable and is able to participate. Remember that attending a workshop is not a performance; experienced facilitators will ensure that you will not be judged or criticised or made to do anything you don’t want to do.

Try to avoid taking centre stage too often as you may inadvertently prevent others from participating. A good facilitator will help balance the participation efforts of different people throughout the course of the workshop.

6. Answer questions

As a facilitator, I find that one of the best ways to deliver an important teaching principle is to phrase it as a question. If the facilitator asks you a question, try to answer it even if you are just guessing. Having 2-3 people answer a question can reflect the variety of perspectives that attendees bring to a workshop. Occasionally, facilitators will throw open a question from someone to the entire workshop to see what different answers or perspectives might arise.

7. Ensure you are physically comfortable

Some people find it difficult to sit for an hour, or even for 20 minutes. If you need to stand up for a while, stand up. No one is going to mind. Ask for an extra short break if you feel one is needed. Always bring a jacket to account for unresponsive air-conditioners.

8. Take notes

This may seem an obvious piece of advice but some people think that they don’t need to take notes if they are given lecture handouts. Even if you never read your notes again, the act of taking notes reinforces your learning and helps you to focus on what you consider are the most important points.

9. Complete the evaluation survey

Completing the evaluation survey not only helps the facilitator understand how the workshop went, it is also crucial to help reinforce what you have learned during the workshop.

After the workshop:

10. Review your notes and resources

After the workshop, review the notes you took and the handouts and resources provided by the facilitator. List the most important things that you learned from the workshop and think about what you need to do next. Review the checklists provided (or create your own) to help you remember what you have learned. If you need to, email the facilitator with further questions.

Aim to review your training notes with 1-2 weeks after the workshop to help reinforce what you have learned. Also aim to review your writing before and after the workshop and look for improvements in your writing. Itemise any areas that may need further training and investigate what resources there are to help you with your next stage of learning.

SUBSCRIBE to the Writing Clear Science Newsletter

to keep informed about our latest blogs and training.

Find out more about our online courses...

The zone of silence: reducing distraction in the writing workplace

The meeting is a sacred workplace activity where people are given a quiet space to sit and a table to write on. The meeting is shielded from interruptions or disturbances. You wouldn’t expect someone to randomly walk into a meeting without warning, cup of coffee in hand, and strike up a conversation about how bad the traffic was that morning. Yet these types of disturbances naturally happen when trying to write at your desk. Writing is as important as attending a meeting but doesn’t receive the same respect. Writing is expected to fit in around the edges of everything else: emails, queries from colleagues, phones and computers.

Trying to stay focused on any task is difficult if there are distractions. Distractions let the procrastination monster walk right in the front door and kick you out of your chair. Yet many people work in an open office: a shared workspace with no doors and often no walls. If you don’t have a door to close, it’s easier to get interrupted, easier to hear your neighbour‘s conversation and easier to hear incidental noises. Common ways of avoiding distraction are to put headphones on and listen to music (or pretend to), take your work home, or start early or leave late.

Avoid distractions when trying to write

Set up a Zone of Silence

A straightforward and inexpensive tactic is to create The Zone of Silence in your workplace. The Zone of Silence is simply an empty desk close to a powerpoint with a booking sheet stuck to the wall so everyone can see who is using it.

The rules of the zone of silence:

The area is used only for writing
Turn off your phone
Disconnect from the internet and wifi
Only brings notes and material connected with your current project
No talking
Avoid leaving to complete a different task

Active use of The Zone of Silence may raise the profile of writing as an activity that requires dedicated space and adequate periods of time in order to be completed effectively. If the rules of The Zone of Silence, is taken seriously, there is an excellent chance that writing productivity can be improved.

Any suggestions or comments please email info@writingclearscience.com.au

Find out more about our online courses...

SUBSCRIBE to the Writing Clear Science Newsletter

to keep informed about our latest blogs, webinars and writing courses.

Should we use active or passive voice?

The traditional criticism of active voice

Traditionally, science and academic writers were strongly advised to use passive voice in order to maintain objectivity. However, this view is based on the criticism of using the first person (‘I’ or ‘my’) in that an individual’s view or perspective was considered biased. For example, the proponents of the passive voice in science writing claim that the active construction “I observed the behaviour.” presents a subjective view, while the passive construction “The behaviour was observed.” presents a more objective perspective. Some also argue that the use of personal pronouns in science and academic writing gives the impression of stating an opinion. However, active voice is not governed by the use of personal pronouns. You can write in passive voice while using a personal pronoun. For example: “I was photographed by my friend”.

What is meant by ‘voice’?

In simple terms, ‘voice’ refers to the relationship between the subject and the verb.

How to identify active voice

Active voice is when the grammatical subject performs the action specified by the verb.

For example:

Active voice: “I produced ten surveys.” The subject is the person “I” who performs the action “produced”.

How to identify passive voice

Passive voice is when the grammatical subject of the sentence is receiving the action specified by the verb. Passive voice always has the verb form ‘to be’ followed be a past participle. ‘To be’ verbs include: ‘is’, ‘are’, ‘am’, ‘was’, ‘were’, ‘has been’, ‘have been’, ‘will be’, ‘will have been’ and ‘being’. They are also known as linking verbs. A past participle is a past tense verb that often (but not always) ends in ‘ed’.

For example:

Passive voice: “Ten surveys were produced”. The subject is the “surveys” that receives the action “were produced”. In this sentence, the reader does not know who or what produced the surveys.

Passive voice with an object: “Ten surveys were produced by me”. In this example, the object of the sentence specifies who (or what) performs the action (me).

The criticism of passive voice

The insistence that writers should always avoid the personal pronouns (or the first person) has lessened and the use of active voice is increasingly encouraged. Key criticisms of passive voice are that the reader does not know who or what was responsible for the action described in the sentence and that passive sentence constructions are often wordy and vague.

Both types of voice are necessary for good, clear writing

Whether you use active or passive depends upon what you are writing and what you need to focus on.

1. If it is necessary to specify who or what performed the action

Without adding an object identifying the performer of the action, passive construction can make it difficult to know who did what.

For example:

“The effectiveness of stem cell treatment was investigated.” With this statement the reader might be unsure who did the investigation. They might assume that the authors are referring to another study. Whereas, “We investigated the effectiveness of stem cell treatment.” clearly lets the reader know that the authors did the investigation.

If a sentence is to remain passive, a citation might be necessary to let the reader know who did the investigation.

2. If it is necessary to focus on the action itself

The following example is from the methods section of a recent research paper, which uses both passive and active voice. Here the focus is on what was measured, determined, distinguished and compared. Continual reference to who did the measuring is not necessary.

“The abundance, sex ratio, and age structure of GT and NGT trees were determined by designating 47 plots (50 m × 50 m) in the six sites in the main GIAHS area (Fig. 1a). Morphological difference of GT and NGT trees was distinguished by identifying the graft scar just above ground. In each plot, we measured the location, basal diameter (BD), and sex of each of each torreya tree. The sex ratio of NGT trees was calculated in each plot. The population density (number per ha) of GT and NGT trees was statistically compared with a t-test in R.” p 8. Zang et al. 2019

3. If the person or thing responsible for the action is unknown

For example:

Passive: “The car was stolen.”

Active: “Somebody stole my car.”

4. When explaining cause and effect

For example:

Passive: "Most malaria cases are caused by the parasite Plasmodium falciparum".

Active: "The parasite Plasmodium falciparum causes most cases of malaria".

5. If it is necessary to deliberately avoid specifying authorship

Some government departments, consultancies and corporations produce documents where acknowledgement of individual authors is deliberately avoided. This might occur when documents are designed to represent the organisation in its entirety or when a variety of different authors design, write and update documents.

For example:

- Passive: “The remediation program was initiated in early 2015”.

- Active: “Land & Water initiated the remediation program in early 2015”.

In these cases, the third person (we) may be used to collectively represent the organisation or institution.

6. If changing voice will make your writing more concise

If you do not need to specify who did what, your writing can be more concise.

For example:

- “~~We found that~~ an increase in production rate was caused by increasing the length of the probe.” (16 words)

- “An increase in production rate was caused by increasing the length of the probe.” (14 words).

Changing to active voice makes the sentence shorter and more direct.

- “Increasing the length of the probe caused an increase in production rate.” (12 words).

Finally...

As passive voice is commonly in past tense, some confuse past tense with passive voice. Tense explains when something happened while voice explains who or what performs the action. Here are examples of active and passive voice written in the three different tenses.

For example:

Passive voice

Past tense: "The problem was investigated by me".

Present tense: "The problem is being investigated by me".

Future tense: "The problem will be investigated by me".

Active voice

Past tense: "I investigated the problem".

Present tense: "I am investigating the problem".

Future tense: "I will investigate the problem".

Find out more about our new online course...

SUBSCRIBE to the Writing Clear Science Newsletter

to keep informed about our latest blogs, webinars and writing courses.