Using Plain Language for effective interdisciplinary science communication

Abstract

Globalization, rapid technological advances and complex problems require scientists to cross-collaborate to solve problems, and to compete for funding in an interdisciplinary arena. This involves communication across disciplines, often also across national, cultural and linguistic borders. Such communication is mainly in English, currently the global language of science, but a second language for many scientists. One important area of interdisciplinary peer-to-peer science communication is writing and reviewing funding proposals, formulated in terms of discipline-specific details, terminology and concepts. However, panels reviewing funding proposals seldom consist only of experts from the same field of expertise as the proposers. This thesis posits that one way to enhance the chances that proposals are not misunderstood, and to assist the reviewing process, is to apply Plain Language strategies. This exploratory, mixed methods study investigates the use of Plain Language principles in interdisciplinary peer-to-peer science communication and how it can help to clarify funding proposals. It thus adds to previous Plain Language research conducted on consumer needs around finance, law and the medical sciences, and on how Plain Language benefits science communication with the general public and applications in science education. Based on an extensive literature review on science communication and Plain Language definitions, a definition of Plain Language for funding proposals and eight Plain Language guidelines were developed to guide the analysis of two funding proposals. From these two texts, sample texts were selected and rewritten in Plain Language for testing in a survey, which also probed participants’ writing experiences, their perceptions on Plain Language and collaboration with language practitioners in science communication. The survey provided some quantitative and some qualitative data, which were expanded by two rounds of interviews with engineers and other scientists. Survey respondents confirmed the frequent need for written peer-to-peer communication. They predominantly preferred the Plain Language versions of the sample texts, confirming the relevance of the eight guidelines relating to the macro-level (organisation) and micro-level (vocabulary, conciseness, vertical listing, sentence length, active/passive voice, reduction of cross-references and sequencing). The scientists in the sample seemed aware of the concept of Plain Language, but were unsure of the value of the guidelines beyond simplification, which some resisted. Overall, participants were positive about Plain Language and collaboration with language practitioners, although they mentioned practical obstacles to collaboration. Many equated language services with checking spelling and grammar, which implies a need for the language services industry to educate scientists on the value of language-related services. Instead of document-based collaboration, interviewees showed a keen interest in training on Plain Language guidelines and associated strategies to ensure that reviewers of proposal are able to judge the merit of research on first reading.