This is a really nice reflection (and I'm glad you enjoyed this assignment!)— but it feels a bit disconnected from the rest of the blog post. Part of me wanted to see you bring this back to mango and shrimp (ha). Or some other conclusion that sums up what I've learned by reading the post.

In general, I think this post could benefit from a stronger structure. Your key message is that plain language is powerful for public health/science communication. This is supported by your first point (that plain language helps break down power dynamics and barriers to informed decision making) and by your third point (that it increases "cognitive comfort"/streamlines understanding). But the second point and final point aren't clearly connected to your key message. #2 is about what makes plain language hard and #4 is about how much you enjoy using it. Do you see how these are not quite aligned with the message you're trying to get across?

Hopefully this exercise helps you create strong structures in future blogs! You have such a unique voice.

Great extension of the metaphor to translate a difficult concept

Ooh I love this analogy

You still haven't quite explained what the concept of plain language is... the shrimp story starts to hint at it but somewhere you need to explain, in a clear sentence, what you mean. ("Plain language" is also jargon, ironically)

Good comparison.

And another new paragraph here would work well. 1-4 sentence paragraphs!

This would be a good place to add a paragraph break so that people don't get intimidated by all the text. (Especially if they are reading on a mobile phone)

Spell this out so that people who aren't in the program understand.

This is a really clever hook that also effectively illustrates your key point. The only issue is that it takes a few paragraphs to get to the key point—and doing so requires the reader to get through some intimidating language about statistics. Is a way to introduce plain language earlier in the post? It might be as simple as cutting a few sentences from the two first paragraphs, or adding a first line that introduces the concept of plain language before you dive in.

But whatever you do, don't lose the mango and the shrimp! It's such a clever and strange intro that it makes the post very memorable. It also shows your personality.

I love all the personal examples you're sharing! They make the post more engaging and the points you raise more concrete/less abstract.

This is a powerful outro that nicely sums up your key argument.

I'm noticing that you use a lot of adjectives and adverbs in this post. Removing these not only makes writing simpler (good for online reading), it can also (somewhat paradoxically) make the sentence stronger.

E.g., you could just say "emphasize the importance" and get the same point across.

This is a great example and could actually replace the introduction you currently have. (I.e., instead of sharing Henrietta's story you could hook the reader's interest by sharing your own).

I would spell out "MPH" in case someone who isn't in the program ends up reading it. Also, you could say "As a Master of Public Health student, I've been taught to...."

This makes it clear who you are and also makes the post more inviting and relevant to secondary audiences (e.g., people working in public health but who aren't in the UBC program). I switched encouraged with "taught" to avoid repeating "encouraged" (see next sentence)

Love this.

This is great! It's exactly what I would want/expect to see right after your hook in your intro. I would recommend shortening the story to 1-2 short paragraphs (just the key information) and then transitioning immediately to this highlighted section).

I love that you've started this post with a story to hook the reader's attention and increase engagement. But somewhere around here you need to let people know what the blog post is about (i.e., plain language). If you take too long to introduce this information, people can't be sure whether it's worth it to read on. They will be only be motivated to do so if it's clear that the blog post is discussing something relevant to them.

Thanks for this clear, compelling, and highly legible post. I really appreciated the personal and warm tone you took, as well as your use of plain language and web writing best practices. My main suggestion for improvement is around structure. Your key message—that plain language should be part of epi education—is clear and well supported by the post content. But the supporting messages or "3 reasons" you provided to support this point overlap with one another and aren't quite framed as reasons. In particular, the COVID case is more an example than a reason. I left a more specific point about this below, as well as some detailed edits to support you in doing future writing of this nature (if it interests you). You have a knack for it!

This is a really strong, compelling ending. It is an excellent demonstration of your unique and personal voice. The tone and clarity with which you write made this blog post a joy to read.

There's no need to say "In conclusion" in a blog post. It feels very formal compared to the light, informal, and familiar tone you've used throughout the post.

This is an excellent caption. I would have liked to see the same for the two comics above.

I would define what this is, since not all readers will be familiar with this concept. (It's jargon)

I would change this to something that more specifically reflects what this section is about. E.g., "Benefits of using plain language in epidemiology"

"at an"?

unnecessary word. Can just delete.

it's really "another option" since plain language is singular.

Passive language, could more simply state as "it establishes and reinforces a power imbalance"

Academic/formal word given your tone. Could change to "with" or

Love this

Consider changing to "Let me take you back" to make it a bit stronger/more active.

Right here, I would change to a colon and spell out the topic. I.e., "...talk about then: plain language" or "the value of plain language".

Your intro is really great but it takes a while to get to the key message/topic the blog post is about. You want people to be able to decide whether it's worth reading this as quickly as possible, which means telling them what it's about.

I love this intro. Good hook and really establishes your unique voice and sense of "fellow student"

You switched to present tense, whereas previous sentence was in past tense.

Consider "gave" as a simpler alternative.

Same here — suggest spelling out. You can use short form in the later paragraphs.

While I know your target audience will know this word, I'd still spell it out so that other students/people interested in Epidemiology can find the blog

Just to confirm: are these the TOTAL number of tweets, users, retweets, likes, replies received by all DOIs in each journal? shared as research papers and as media stories about research?

Is this the average number of space in which a DOI is shared (as either news or research)? And is it a decimal that is less than zero because you included all DOIs in the dataset, including those that were never shared?

Are these average numbers? I.e. the average number of posts per DOI? If not, why are there decimal places?

So true.

Spot on, unfortunately.

Hegemony

1. The predominance of one state or social group over others.
2. Predominance; preponderance; leadership; specifically, headship or control exercised by one state over another or others, as through confederation or conquest: originally applied to such a relation often existing among the states of ancient Greece.
3. Leadership; preponderant influence or authority; -- usually applied to the relation of a government or state to its neighbors or confederates.

Organicism is the philosophical perspective which views the universe and its parts as organic wholes and - either by analogy or literally - as living organisms. It can be synonymous with holism

The 'Cartesian Paradigm' is where both body and mind are perceived as distinct and separate and not part of a unified whole . The name Cartesian is derived from the French philosopher Rene Descartes .

Why not?

So important, and so often overlooked.

So much of peer review's history rests on public perceptions of science.

Peer review originated as a publicity stunt! Ha. Who would have guessed?

This is so key. The purpose and meaning of peer review has changed dramatically since it was first introduced.

Peer review became essential to public trust in science.

The question of anonymity is a really interesting component of peer review. On the one hand, it could let reviewers be more honest (no fear of offending peers). On the other, there's such a lack of accountability.

True. Peer review has almost become synonymous with scientific credibility.

This may be even more true on social media platforms, such as Twitter.

There are two general approaches to automatic summarization: extraction and abstraction. Extractive methods work by selecting a subset of existing words, phrases, or sentences in the original text to form the summary. In contrast, abstractive methods build an internal semantic representation and then use natural language generation techniques to create a summary that is closer to what a human might express. Such a summary might include verbal innovations.—Wikipedia

A caliphate (Arabic: خِلافة‎ khilāfa) is a state ruled by an Islamic leader known as a caliph. This is a person considered a religious successor to the Islamic prophet, Muhammad, and a leader of the entire muslim community.

Wow.

This is so, so true.

1. Anxieties (what is the audience concerned about, how does this product or service address those fears)
2. Contrarian (is there a controversy that should be addressed)
3. Personal stories (how can I give a personal voice to the story, what human-interest points are there)
4. Counterintuitive (can I pull back the curtain to reveal that things are not as they seem)
5. David vs. Goliath (are we a small player pitted against a giant, and are likely to win)
6. Aspirational (what’s the big hairy audacious goal)
7. Avalanche about to roll (nobody likes to miss out on something big, how can I convey that in the organizational story)
8. How to (what are the practical steps or lessons to impart)
9. Glitz and glam (is there a celebrity angle, a wow factor)

key finding

fascinating

i love this

fascinating

wow.

interesting... so much lower than the rest

wow

This is really fascinating. Does the same thing happen with New Technology Optimism?

This, at least, is sort of encouraging.

Interesting that the algorithms are so much less effective at identifying hate speech. Is this because it's less of a priority for FB, or because hate speech is simply more complex than other kinds of flagged content.

Transmedia storytelling

Affective economics - branded content/sponsored content

black box fallacy

Media (from Lisa Gitelman):

1. technology that enables communication
2. set of associated protocols, or social or cultural practices, that grow up around that technology

i.e. Trump's "fake news"

why we use the term "text"—and not some other word—when doing meaning analysis

post-structuralist: people from different cultures make sense of and experience reality differently; no one culture is better than the others.

structuralism: belief that all cultures are built on shared structures; they have the same basic building blocks but use them in different ways.

realism: belief that one's own culture is the only correct way of knowing.

Where did these come from? Previous research? A hunch?

Reasons why news coverage of social issues tends to skew individual-level:

1. American culture is individualistic
2. Societal approaches/solutions seen as too radical (economically, political)
3. News coverage tends to be episodic, focusing on the individual

Two conflicting views of responsibility attributions:

1. societal: social or structural issues are at the heart of the problem, and need to be addressed through social forces (e.g. policies, business practices, laws, etc)
2. individual: social problems are largely caused by individual deficiencies; change efforts tend to focus on modifications of problematic behaviours

Causal responsibility: what/who is the source of the problem Treatment responsibility: who has the power or the responsibility to alleviate the problem

Factors that influence frame building:

1. social norms and cultural values
2. organizational pressurs and constraints
3. pressures from interest groups
4. professional routines
5. characteristics of individual journalists

Organizational pressures: e.g. political orientation or view of the publisher, or economic pressures

Has anyone done a more recent framing study that considered age or other demographics when analyzing framing effects?

Comparing survey data (i.e. individual/public opinion) with news coverage (media framing)

Pegs: key topical events that journalists use to provide broader coverage and commentary about an ongoing issue. Aka "critical discourse moments" (Chilton, 1987)

i.e. the most available and accessible frames are the most likely to influence public opinion

Balance Norm, a media practice that influences framing

Interpretive packages: the clusters of metaphors, catchphrases, visual images, moral appeals, and other symbolic devices that characterize the discourse around a policy issue, giving meaning to relevant events.

Cultural resonances: ideas or language within an interpretive package that resonate with larger cultural themes, increasing the appeal of the package.

Sponsor activities: speech making, interviews with journalists, article and pamphlet writing, etc to promote a specific package, usually based off of some collective agenda. Sponsors could be organizations, political parties, activists, companies, etc and often employ PR specialists.

Media practices: journalists' working norms and practices that add value to the process of constructing interpretive packages

Media discourse (framing) and public opinion are parallel processes: each informs the other, but the relationship should not be seen as causational

Framing is influenced by individual predisposition or schemas

Available here: http://www.amber-boydstun.com/uploads/1/0/6/5/106535199/policyframescodebook.docx

Precision = True Positives ÷ (True Positives + False Positives)

• High precision = few false positives identified
• Low precision = many false positives identified

Recall = True Positives ÷ (True Positives + False Negatives)

• High recall = few false negatives
• Low recall = many false negatives identified

https://nlpforhackers.io/classification-performance-metrics/precision-recall/ https://medium.com/@klintcho/explaining-precision-and-recall-c770eb9c69e9

Non-academic definition of framing

Shocking how great the influence of one very loud person can be.

super interesting - are people seen as more trustworthy than news sources? More credible? What would that mean in a news framing context? (Druckman, 2001)

Ha!

We are great at turning public goods into profitable enterprises. Using an earlier, just think of how insane it is that we sell bottled water (and in some cases, bottled air)

Do these still qualify as public goods? I would argue that our use of air and water has started diminishing these goods' availability—and quality—for others.

The very thing universities are using to evaluate and promote their value is actually making them less valuable...

I wonder how Kathleen (or her publisher) decided WHEN to close the comments section. Interesting question for collaborative public works: When, if ever, do you decide that a piece is truly finished?

See SFU student Carol Muñoz Nieves's talk on the "Invisible Labour" of public scholarship for more on this subject

This is a really good point—we need to incentivize public scholarship if we expect it to work. The OA citation advantage is one obvious benefit that makes it "desirable". Can anyone think of others?

This happens in the fiction world too, on Wattpad. Readers provide comments on stories as they are being written, and sometimes the writers actually change the plot accordingly.

I'm not sure it always makes for better writing, but many authors find it is encouraging to have their fans cheer them on as they write.

http://www.wordherders.net/ (Though most of the blogs are no longer active)

Similar things are happening in Canada: "Since 1990, the government’s share of university funding has fallen by nearly half and the cost of tuition at universities has risen 2.7 times in real terms"

It's still better than the US, though. About 50-60% of university funding comes from government sources

It's about more than making textbooks more (economically) accessible. It's also a way to make them more engaging.

The 2.5% Commitment: Every academic library should commit to contribute 2.5% of its total budget to support the common infrastructure needed to create the open scholarly commons. http://intheopen.net/2017/09/join-the-movement-the-2-5-commitment/

Organization and coordination? Marketing? I definitely understand this point, but I would argue that you still need some infrastructure to publish. Especially the question of diffusion. There is so much information circulating online that having some kind of outreach strategy is essential. I mean even PLoS has a marketing person....

Wow. This is insane. Who knew knowledge was so profitable?

This is surprising. Quantity over quality?

I wonder what life would be like if this had never have happened. Would science have advanced as much as it has? Would we still trust scientists for "expert" opinions? What would it mean to do research without this professionalization?

Such a good point. Do any existing organizations have this? Does Google or Facebook? (And if not, what on earth will happen to all that data if these companies were to collapse?)

I like that this article highlights the disadvantages of colonialism for the Global North, not just the Global South

The concepts of scarcity and value are so strongly connected. If access to knowledge isn't seen as something exclusive, can it still be seen as valuable?

So true. And so sad.

I love the expression "lost science" that's used earlier in the article. How much knowledge is lost because it isn't seen as valuable, important, or "core" science?

Funny, considering that, in the Global North, OA journals are sometimes critiqued for being low quality or even "predatory"—i.e. the opposite of professional.

e.g. https://bitesizebio.com/34520/open-access-good-bad-ugly/

This wouldn't be so problematic if international collaboration benefited all researchers in the same way—i.e. if collaborating with people in non-OECD countries also increased researchers' exposure/status/impact.

I wonder whether it's the name of the author or their actual location that leads to them being "passed over." I mean, we know the "ethnic" name bias exists elsewhere. Does it happen in academia too?

Revisit this?

Interesting, given that "The only form of open for which mean impact has decreased steadily over time is Gold."

Why?

I don't really know if I fully understand what Bronze is. Anyone have any examples?

So these (already pretty encouraging) results actually underestimate the amount of scholarly work that is available for free online.

Juan, is anyone investigating this? That was the point of the Twitter bot study, right?

Why?

Definitely. I think people sometimes rule out the possibility that the public might just be interested in research, simply for interest's sake!

In a study of the Italian public's interest in science, Falchetti et al (2007) conclude that—though a large portion of the public's science questions were practical in nature, they also expressed a strong interest in the "great unanswered questions" of the universe (e.g. "the origin of the universe, the paradox of reality envisioned by the theory of relativity, the nature of matter and anti-matter, the causes leading to death, the alternative between actual existence and the perception of reality")

As the authors put it, "These questions tend to be ignored by science teaching and by the media, as if assuming that people are interested just in information and ordinary topics that have a bearing on their lives."

This is such a crucial point. If participants don't have any agency over the data they collect, does it still count as citizen science?

A related question: Does using Facebook, Twitter, Google, or any other app or platform that captures user data count as citizen science? And if not, why?

Does this definition still hold true today? I got the sense that while some citizen science initiatives—like the community science projects Bonney et al. (2015) mention—do fit both parts of the definition, some of the more data collection-focused projects only really fit the latter half.

FYI for anyone who's interested, this literally means "curious noses"

It would be nice if this list also included something about educating or benefiting the participants themselves.

I wonder what the risks are of citizen science. For example, are there any ethical considerations that come into play when involving so many members of the public?

Most of the citizen science research seems to be related to environmentalism. What other domains has it been used in?

Street science is a framework that joins local insights with professional scientific techniques, with concurrent goals: to improve scientific inquiry and environmental health policy and decision making.

The Environmental Protection Agency is an independent agency of the United States federal government for environmental protection: https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/our-mission-and-what-we-do

And in terms of language, time/flexibility of scheduling, skill with/access to technology... can anyone think of others?

I would be curious to know what some of these intrinsic motivations are. If we knew, scientists could probably do a better job of making sure these projects are actually rewarding to the citizens who participate.

Third, is it possible that the "beleaguered project leader" just doesn't care? Maybe I'm just being cynical but can we really assume that every researcher engaged in citizen science cares deeply about the personal development of each participant?

Does this statement make anyone else a little sad? On the one hand, I think it's great that there's funding in place to promote science education through research. On the other, it would be so nice if we didn't have to incentivize it monetarily.

Asura has a cool paper about this! About the challenges of using Facebook data as an indicator of engagement: https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.01194

But how long will these groups remain relevant? Social media changes so, so fast.

So if someone shares/favorites/retweets a scholar's personal tweet—something completely unrelated to any research—does that count as scholarly metrics? If so, that seems problematic.

Salami publication can be roughly defined as a publication of two or more articles derived from a single study (2). Articles of such type report on data collected from a single study split into several segments just large enough to gain reasonable results and conclusions, also known as “minimal publishable unit” (3).

Source: Smolčić, V. Š. (2013). Salami publication: definitions and examples. Biochemia Medica, 23(3), 237–241. http://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2013.030

Does it actually show this?

So interesting. I feel like we tend to think of law as doing the opposite: offering a single, "just" interpretation of a given situation.

Yes! This is such an important point. Laying down a sentence isn't enough. We also need initiatives—both short term and long term—dedicated to helping women heal, cope, and even just survive in the aftermath of the violence they've experienced, as well as preventative measures.

What other "systems" should be applied?

among other things

There seems to be this tendency to view Indigenous beliefs, practices, and systems as traditional and static, rather than contemporary, dynamic, and flexible.

Such an important distinction. To who are you making your work public? How often are researchers asked to look outside of the university walls?

This kind of makes sense, given the high applicability and relevancy of (some) Life Sciences research

So I guess that answers an earlier question: not all RPT documents are publicly available

This is a question I keep struggling with in this course: What does "the public" actually want from the academic community? Has anyone actually asked?

(If so, can someone please point me to the paper/article/resource?)

Yes, but what people? I would love to know some stats/demographics about who uses this space, and why. Does this revitalized building actually appeal to or serve the needs of the existing community? Or has it simply introduced another community (i.e. the university) into that space.

we talked about this with Nancy last class. When does it make sense to take a big picture approach and scale down, vs a localized approach that you scale up later.

Okay, this is a bit over the top. Sounds like a fairy tale. Or like one of those inspirational movies where the new teacher comes in and improves the inner city high school's literacy rates by 200% in one year. (I get their point, though....)

I remember this from being at UBC—the school felt so separate from the rest of the community. There were even tours of Vancouver's downtown east side available for students, because so many of them had never even been east of Main Street.

love this.

i.e. urbanization is moving outwards, rather than upwards. I think Vancouver is trying to do the opposite.

Wow. Also, so true in other settings as well—women are more likely to do work that doesn't advance their careers.

I wonder what they might have discovered if they'd interviewed at least one person who doesn't engage in CES. I'm curious what prevents academics from doing so, and whether having more formal policies or recognition would actually make a difference for scholars who aren't already interested in CES.

Should these policies be developed by individual faculties or universities, or at a federal or international level?

It seems there are so many different definitions, so many different visions of what CES can and should entail—I wonder if we need a unified body, some kind of standard way to conceptualize CES.

Does this count as CES? Somehow, this image of the professor telling the community "they are wrong" doesn't really sit well with me. Where, actually, is Arnal getting this view from? What research does he have to support it?

His use of the term "prison of ignorance" later in the paragraph also really diminishes the power of the community's own views and experiences. Just because his views differ from others' in the community, doesn't mean those others are ignorant.

Best line in this article.

Does all CES need to address inequalities? Can you think of any examples that don't?

Does all CES need to be practical/applied research?

I'm curious what Block is basing this statement on, and what community looks like "in the east".

Does using these kinds of extreme cultural comparisons make anyone else weary or uncomfortable? I feel like they really create space for generalizations and stereotyping. (In cultural psych, for example, although differences within groups are often larger than those between groups, the latter tend to be the focus of more research and media coverage)

I absolutely hate this idea of "inserting" scholarship into a community. It seems to go completely against most of the other definitions of engaged scholarship, in which research is informed by, and done in collaboration with, the community (rather than done in isolation, then only later "inserted" into the community). This framing makes CES feel aggressive, authoritative, and dominating: the researcher pushing her work into the community, without any input or even permission from the community members themselves.

Plus, I would argue that whether or not they choose to acknowledge it or not, all scholars—and the work they produce—exist within some community, likely several different ones at once. The choice is more about recognizing that existing context, and deciding whether, how, and to what extent to engage with it.

Again, see https://engagedscholarship.ca/

Link doesn't exist. I think the actual website is https://engagedscholarship.ca/

They used a very similar design to Alperin et al (2018). Key differences I spotted right away:

1. topic (CES vs open access)
2. sample size (19 vs 100+)
3. region (Canada vs Canada AND USA) Do you notice any others?

Aren't we all "experienced-based experts" in something? I feel like this goes back to that idea of the scientist as an authority figure. Once we label someone as an "expert", their opinion instantly becomes more valid, acceptable, trustworthy.

What on earth is a "typical community setting"?

Probably also more relevant, if you're involving the people/groups who will be directly affected by the policy in question.

I.e. it is the responsibility of scientists to create the demand for evidence, not just supply it.

Like all humans when we make decisions, no?

It sounds like what's happened with journalism and the click-bait culture. Are sensational reporting and eye-grabbing headlines just a more effective way of engaging the public?

You could argue most (maybe all?) of these apply to the policy makers themselves too, as key barriers that get in the way of using high quality information effectively

interesting

Like writing a press release about your research study, packaging it nicely for media

This seems to mirror the challenges journalists are experiencing almost exactly, according to Lasia Kretzel (from the Jevin West talk on Sep 13)

WIllinsky (Access Principle, Ch 11) argues that structuring publications in this way (with simple summary points or key takeaways) can make it easier for readers to understand and engage with research.

A third question, I would argue, is "Whose voice is being left out?" What evidence is inaccessible, or is being (either unintentionally or intentionally) ignored?