Measuring mumbo jumbo: A preliminary quantification of the use of jargon in science communication

Sharon, Aviv J.; Baram‐Tsabari, Ayelet

doi:10.1177/0963662512469916

Cited by 67 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 34 publications

(43 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This statement is in line with findings from other authors and recommendations in handbooks for popular science journalists 2 . Generally, Sharon/Baram-Tsarabi (2014) show that the amount of terms (or jargon, as they prefer) in popular science communication (esp. in TED Talks) is reduced in comparison to the intra-scientific communication between experts.…”

Section: State Of the Art: Terms In Popular Science Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Terms in Popular Science Communication: The Case of TV Documentaries

Jaki

2018

HJLCB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Science documentaries on television aim to provide easy and entertaining access to research findings. To do so, producers need to know how to explain complex content for non-expert audiences in a comprehensible way. At the same time, they have to decide what aspects of a subject might be relevant for viewers, or how the subject matter could be rendered more interesting by employing strategies such as personalisation or emotionalisation. One specific decision concerns the use of terms. Both existing research and journalistic handbooks suggest that terms should be or are, in fact, avoided in popular science contexts. However, there is only little empirical research on the topic. This contribution seeks to test several pre-existing hypotheses on terms in documentaries for adults and show how often terms are used and whether/how they are explained when they appear. Examining terms in four English and four German science documentaries, the analysis points out which communicative resources are used to facilitate the comprehension of terms, and where an explanation seems to focus primarily on entertainment rather than ease of comprehension. The results challenge some of the previous views on terms in popular science communication and reveal that documentaries display highly idiosyncratic strategies when it comes to the use of terms.

show abstract

Section: State Of the Art: Terms In Popular Science Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Terms in Popular Science Communication: The Case of TV Documentaries

Jaki

2018

HJLCB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are, however, many instances where physicists speak to non-experts about various issues related to science, including current research topics. In these cases, using the same strategies and levels of scientific jargon as with fellow physicists may not be appropriate, and is discouraged [13]. Researchers have been studying jargon and strategies used by scientists when communicating to different groups.…”

Section: Communication Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Kapon et al have identified 4 elements of language (analogies, narrative elements, organization, and content choices) that are used in popular public lectures by physics professors [12]. Additionally, Sharon and Baram-Tsabari have quantified jargon by comparing language used in academic seminars and TED Talks to databases of common science and everyday words [13]. We draw from this body of literature as the basis for our analysis of scientific communication by physics students to K-8 children in an afterschool program.…”

Section: Communication Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of Scientific Language by University Physics Students Communicating to the Public

Hinko¹,

Seneca²,

Finkelstein³

2015

2014 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Communicating to non-expert audiences about advanced physics topics and current research is an essential practice for physicists. Typical language used by physicists speaking to other physicists, however, draws on a wealth of prior knowledge and community norms; using such scientific language with public audiences can be a barrier to effective communication. Drawing from observations and literature, we present a framework for the assessment of scientific language of physics students communicating scientific meaning to non-expert audiences. We apply this framework to the analysis of videos of university physics students instructed to describe their research to children. We classify the types of scientific language used by students and identify strategies they employ to mitigate the impact of jargon on the audience.

show abstract

“…Science communication has received significant attention since the beginning of the twenty‐first century in an effort to improve PUS hand‐in‐hand with improving the public's positive attitudes towards science (Sharon & Baram‐Tsabari, ; Short, ). As PUS refers to the ‘ability of individuals to read and understand information about basic scientific constructs, including some technological constructs’ (Miller, , p. 812), it is oriented to the product , or outcome, of science communication.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward narrowing the gap between science communication and science education disciplines

Kohen

Dori

2018

Review of Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Science communication and science education aim to expose citizens to scientific knowledge, which is increasingly becoming a prerequisite for effective participation in modern society. We aim to present a review of science communication and science education literature, for highlighting the need for and importance of narrowing the gap between the two communities. Our objective was to find what themes, if any, are common to the two disciplines, based on keyword searches of the literature, that represent overlap constructs between the two communities. We searched for academic articles published from 2000 to 2017 in three science communication journals and three science education journals, which contained the keywords science communication, science engagement and science understanding. A three‐stage literature review yielded 70 papers that provided the basis for common theme identification: (i) attitudes towards the importance of science communication, (ii) communication channel types and (iii) scientific knowledge construction. Findings reveal similarities and disparities between the two communities and the stakeholders they investigated. Both communities agree on the meaning of process and product science communication constructs. Yet, while the science education community mainly relates to the product construct, the science communication community mainly relays to the communication construct. We then discuss the value of fostering dialogue between the two communities. Our research contributes to raising the awareness of the value of maintaining ongoing dialogue between science communication and science education communities, accounting for the three common themes we have identified, implying that a common language is emerging, and the variety of stakeholders involved.

show abstract

Measuring mumbo jumbo: A preliminary quantification of the use of jargon in science communication

Cited by 67 publications

References 34 publications

Terms in Popular Science Communication: The Case of TV Documentaries

Terms in Popular Science Communication: The Case of TV Documentaries

Use of Scientific Language by University Physics Students Communicating to the Public

Toward narrowing the gap between science communication and science education disciplines

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About