It’s convention season for many behavior analysts, so I’ll keep this brief. I’ve posted often about the need for, and advantages of, communicating clearly about behavior analysis to people who aren’t part of our discipline’s inner circle. In doing so, if I’ve given the impression that I see this as a unique challenge for behavior analysts then I’ve tread on my own values — by communicating unclearly.
Truth is, everyone who does anything specialized risks falling into the same trap. DOING specialized work requires custom-built vocabulary and concepts. SHARING about that work, to some degree, requires abandoning those very tools.
Because big-tent communication is a generic challenge, it can be helpful to see the problem the eyes of other people who grapple with it. With that in mind, I recommend two easy-to-digest articles that you might find informative.
The first article, titled, “A Scientist Walks Into a Bar…,” was sent to me by Elon University’s Kim Epting. It focuses on the value of using humor when communicating about technical topics. Reinforcer sampling (from the article):
“Decades’ worth of study have demonstrated that humor has the potential to enhance most forms of communication. Research shows that laughter increases people’s energy, interest, and approval of topics, both big and small…. Humor seems to work, in large part, by flipping some of the same emotional switches that misinformation uses. A comical approach can pull people to override their logical and critical thinking.“
While it might count as common sense to propose that everyday people prefer to laugh over slogging through an APA-style report of research, this article makes the persuasive case that the strategic use of humor counts as an evidence-based practice for disseminating science.
The second article, titled, “Scientists Owe Taxpayers Comprehensible Science” was sent to me by Millersville University’s Kelly Banna. It addresses a sometimes-overlooked motivating operation for clear communication, which starts with the fact that a decent chunk of our science is funded with public money. Because the public paid for the science, the argument goes, the public should have access to the findings. One well-known hurdle to this is that most scientific articles are posted behind a paywall. Another is that, even if there’s no paywall, often only about 20 people in the world can understand a scientific report. From the article:
“The federal government provides the majority of funding for academic research and development. The taxpayers whose money funds this research deserve to have easy access to the research findings…. However, simply having the ability to view a webpage with a journal article doesn’t mean that the work will be truly accessible. Scientific papers are highly technical and often include field-specific jargon that can be indecipherable to nonscientists and even to other scientists with expertise in different fields…. If… federal agencies truly want the science they fund to impact the lives of all citizens, they should require their grant recipients to disseminate their findings more regularly in easy-to-find places.“
I often say that speaking plainly about behavior analysis will benefit behavior analysis… but I sometimes forget to mention the equally important fact that the people who buy into behavior analysis will benefit. And, as this article implies, getting them to buy in can be considered an ethical imperative.
Both of these articles are brief and, as befits the topic, clear. You can read them both in just a couple of minutes. And if you’re a behavior analyst whose work has implications for everyday people, which is to say almost any behavior analyst, you SHOULD read these articles and reflect on how to better convey the importance of what you do.
[Oh, and if you’re hitting the conference circuit, keep in mind that the same tools that engage “normal people” might just work for a behavior analyst audience too.]