Last Wednesday night I slogged my way through the city streets to attend the Blogging Science Pro Session at the Apple Store in Soho, NYC, (Jessica was lucky and got to visit the Evolution store beforehand), and I had a pretty good time. I was a little nervous and stuttered (my thoughts moved too fast for my mouth to accurately capture), but overall I think it went over well.
There has even been a little feedback by way of people who attended the talk, and I agree that I was a little disappointed that we (the panelists) were not able to really get into why science blogging is important during the session. I stumbled my way through an explanation involving correcting errors in the popular media, but a lot of time was spent on "How to blog" type questions.
One such question involved comments and how to encourage them on the web. Someone suggesting paying visitors some small amount (~$0.05) for every comment they left, and another mentioned that maybe a "pay pass" (~$10 to be allowed to comment) might help in keeping undesirable comments from appearing. I didn't like either idea. Quantity of comments does not equal quality, and if there was a financial reward for comments I think we'd end up with a lot of nonsense here on the blogs. Likewise, I know if I had to pay money to comment somewhere I wouldn't do it, and I think such a move would stifle conversations on the blogs.
Generally, I would have liked more time to be spent on 1) why science blogging is important, 2) how science blogging and open access are changing the way science is being done (if indeed they are), and 3) what role science blogging has in reaching the public. All these points were touched on to a greater or lesser degree, but often in the context of other questions.
Perhaps my ambivalence partly stems from the fact that I don't feel that what I'm doing here has been especially important. I know the benefits that I have personally received from blogging, but I have no idea if what I have been doing is helping people understand science. I keep at it because I like doing it and it has been great writing practice, but I can't really say whether this blog has helped foster a better understanding of science. I'd like to think so, but I can't tell. I think that's one of the big questions about science blogging right now. Are we helping more people understand science? Or are we primarily a community of the science-savvy talking amongst ourselves?
- Log in to post comments
I agree with you, Brian. Especially with your last paragraph - that there's not a lot of self-reflection amongst the blog community right now about how we contribute to the science discourse. It sounds odd, because there have been so many recent papers on science blogging by our Sciblings and others, but I don't think the fundamental questions are being asked. Sure blogging has changed how scientists talk to each other and to the public. But what specifically are blogs best at doing? and are we using them for those purposes? and what are the benchmarks of science blogging "success"? It's all a black box at this point. . . we should definitely talk more about this later!
Are you kidding? You're my go-to guy! If it weren't for your blog, I wouldn't know half the stuff I know about paleontology outside of human paleontology. Keep up the good work.
I tried to talk about that, once. Most of the responses I got seemed to want to talk about something else instead; I don't recall any of them addressing my suggestion that the things which we count on to complement science blogs are themselves broken (and indeed may share the same difficulties as science blogging itself). I guess I was foolish to expect science bloggers to talk about anything other than science blogging. . . .
Gah. I seem to be making pessimism my trademark whenever this kind of meta-talk comes up. And looking over this comment, I think I sound more unhappy than I am, particularly on a beautiful day (287 kelvins, partly cloudy) like today.
"Are we helping more people understand science? Or are we primarily a community of the science-savvy talking amongst ourselves?"
> Brian, I really hope so, for I know science has been for too long distant from "common people"; blogging is changing science for sure, but society and the Ol' Guard are far away from this revolution: up-to-dated informations on the last topics, possibility of free comment, images and text combined through texts and refs. ...I mean, we're all part of this community, and we're living a social revolution. Again, we are not totally able to judge by present times: fruits are growing for the future, not now. We're planting seeds of communication.
I believe that with my blog ["geomythology", once english/italian, now focusing on italian "science vs religion topics"] I can reach a certain amount of people, just in order to explain them how palaeontology might work with the help of palaeoanthropology, history of religions and symbols...
and I know that my efforts are not in vain [well, you know, geomythology is a new discipline, so this is kinda hard to explain, but nevertheless I'll keep on trying...]
Must continue.
Keep up the good work!
Post Scriptum: What is to do for a 'place' on the "Boneyard"?!
Leonardo
I consider myself a fairly science-savvy layperson, but definitely a layperson -- not a scientist of any sort, not even self-taught. I am particularly interested in zoology and paleontology.
I really like this blog in particular, because it both entertains and educates me. It feeds me information on some topics I am really interested in, in a manner that is accessible to me (I rarely read peer-reviewed journals and papers), but covers topics I never see in the popular press.
I think this blog and Tetrapod Zoology are at the top of my list because:
- They cover topics that I find really interesting -- a lot of which is "bet you didn't know" stuff.
- They are well written, and right at my level of accessibility.
- They are updated quite often. (Tet Zoo almost every day; Laelaps an incredible multiple times in a single day.)
- Unlike a lot of ScienceBlogs, they don't stray into wearisome political commentary all the time. (Oops. Although I can forgive a very occasional straying into this area.)
I can't say that either of the monetary options appeals to me - being someone who doesn't like to talk unless there's something to say, I'm not a fan of commenting just to comment. I'd rather there be some sort of substance to it. I don't necessarily find the idea objectionable; it just wouldn't be enough of an incentive for me to change.
But as far as paying to comment goes? I suspect it'd do more to keep the genuinely-interested from participating than the trolls. It really seems like the latter have the time and money on their hands to get around it - whereas families like mine, who are constantly struggling to decide which bills get paid and which can lapse one more month, aren't going to be able to put a priority on blog commenting. I'm primarily a stay-at-home due to various medical conditions, and the 'net is my primary source of information and entertainment - so that's kind of a budgetable luxury, you know? And I was thrilled when I found ScienceBlogs - I always wanted to go into science, and it just didn't happen. I still love to read about the fields that interest me, though. But I don't have enough personal knowledge to make paying to be part of the conversations worthwhile when it's only going to happen once in a blue moon.
i am a layperson who enjoys reading sci-blogs for the mental stimulation on various topics.
i like reading yours due to it being written in an easily understand format. complex paleo discoveries, theories and other aspects are explained without causing me to reach for a dictionary every few sentences. besides, i was one of the kids who devoured every book on the thunder lizards that the school library. i have never lost my interest in the critters.
as for commenting on blogs, if i have something i feel is worth contributing to a post or thread i will, otherwise, why clutter up with drivel?
Thanks for the comments and compliments, everyone. I'm glad you enjoy what I write.
There seems to be a general sense of ennui on many science blogs lately. I think the questions we have are part of the growing pains of science blogging, finding out what we can and can't do. Perhaps we are not as influential as we think we are, but then again I think science blogs have been useful as springboards for other projects. The issue is complex, but as some of you have said there are still some big questions about the influence of science blogging.