Gini Nelson’s Engaging Conflicts

Cognitive Daily over at ScienceBlogs has several fine posts relating to science literacy. They are associated with both the desire and/or need for the general public to understand science better, and a debate over whether or how scientists should be “framing” their research in communicating with the public in order for the general audience to understand its relevance. I believe the points are directly relevant for Engaging Conflicts readers for at least two reasons. First, science and claims of scientific validity are used increasingly in training seminars and in our practical explanations of how and why we and our clients act as we do. We need science literacy to better evaluate these claims. Second, if we want the general audience to better understand the goals, values and methods of engaging conflicts (I go back to one of Bernie Mayer’s points that very few mediators have clients beating down their doors for their services, and that most successful mediators get the bulk of their casework through court-ordered programs), we need to communicate in the way the general public understands.

So, here are some resources for thinking about these issues. Cognitive Daily has distilled into bullet points how NOT to write a science book (read his post for the details):

• Use lots of anecdotes.
• Don’t scrimp on metaphors.
• Don’t worry about scientific accuracy when employing metaphors.
• Take a long time to make your point.
• Use few or no illustrations.
• Avoid mentioning scientists or experiments.
• Conduct your research by reading other books.
• Assume no one wants to learn about science.