Four page jargon buster, for a SCIENCE COMMUNICATION conference
I recently attended a conference for people in the UK science communication community. You can read a more reflective post I wrote about it here. Today, I just want to show off something I found at the back of their delegate pack: a four page "jargon buster" glossary of acronyms and terms.
FOUR PAGES. At what I'm guessing is roughly 10pt font. For a conference about the communication of esoteric ideas, terms and language to a wider audience.I should stress that I imagine a lot of people appreciated this list. I'm posting it here in no small part to celebrate its ridiculousness, but I also think it's worth sharing because it might well be useful.All this jargon is the fault of the industry, not the conference organisers. Also, jargon can be a good and useful thing (at least in moderation). Many of these are terms I use myself several times a day, and when amongst colleagues I like the fact I can use short, efficient phrases or acronym. I try to teach them to my students.Some reflect names of bodies it becomes easier to shorten (IoP, CRUK, and personal favourite new kid on the block, SoB), some reflect ideas and historical shifts in approach the field has decided to take (e.g. a move from PUS to PD).
Personally I think there are a lot of advantages in the fact Science Communication is professionalised. Sill, it's also necessary to keep it open, and involve the range of other experts who do active science communication work (e.g. professional scientists who also do a fair bit of public communications). Sophia Collins has already made this point very clearly though, go read her post on the need for such a mix.
So, we can joke that a field like science communication needs so much jargon, but the more serious point is that science communicators need to be careful of their jargon because the field contains way more than professionals.
I also suspect that if we forced ourselves to rely on what we mean, rather than buzz words we think other members of our gang will understand, we'd communicate within the profession more effectively too. Just think of "engagement"; an incredibly broad collection of different understandings (including, I'd argue, misunderstandings). Some call this an "umbrella term", other's might say "woolly" or even "meaningless in its multitude of meanings".
Plus, as I said on twitter, they missed my very favourite science communication acronym: PANTS (Public Awareness of New Tech).
