You may have noted that there has been some recent discourse about handwriting and its proven benefits for cognitive development and learning. While engaging in an online discussion, I realized that my own handwriting has been shaped by two persons:

• Birgitta #. and Inger #. – my first- and third-grade teachers (I skipped second class) who helped me and my classmates produce a neat and readable cursive. (It’s really hard to imagine a Swedish class of seven- to nine-year-olds doing this today!)

• Edward Bell – the British art director who designed the David Bowie album Scary Monsters (and Super Creeps). The scan below shows a handout I prepared for a presentation in English class. (Click on it to see the entire page.) I imitated Bell’s style, I adopted it and I kept it as a way of expressing myself.

This post was originally published in Swedish at the Vetenskap & Allmänhet website. “VA is an independent Swedish non-profit membership organization that works to promote dialogue and openness between researchers and the public.”

I harp on about it all the time, so I may as well carry on here too: The research community today is weighed down by a communication culture that is not only unnecessarily restrained but in many ways outdated.

In part, I’m talking about the forums where researchers get together to present data and discuss results (peer-to-peer scientific communication). Here are some examples: text-heavy layout in scientific journals, overloaded research posters, and general lack of boldness and imagination when it comes to how to deliver a powerful presentation.

And secondly, I’m talking about the dialogue between researchers and the world (science dissemination). Here, a devoted vanguard of educators are doing an amazing job, but at the same time too many researchers still undervalue and neglect EPO (Education and Public Outreach).

Now I’m not saying that things are as bad in Sweden as they are elsewhere. In fact, when you raise your gaze and peer out over the world, a clear pattern emerges: the more hierarchical, tradition-bound and prestige-oriented the academy is, the duller and more austere is its culture. To illustrate this, here’s a little story that reached me from a former communist country. The old professor, who was very influential in his country’s scientific community, was not interested in learning about presentation techniques; He believed that data and results should speak for themselves. He even implied that communication training is a way of obtaining illicit advantages.

Unfortunately, it’s not just former Eastern bloc professors in gray gabardine who oppose progressive ideas. The American researcher and communicator Adria Le Boeuf – who has tirelessly engaged in outreach activities such as improvisational theater in Lausanne – wrote the following in an article (link below): “In research, we are accustomed to the driest possible presentation of results: the scientific paper. When findings are presented clearly, in simple language, with a hint of storytelling or charisma, many scientists feel practically manipulated.”

Despite all this, I’m not particularly worried about the future. Students and younger researchers have grown up in a completely different world. They find it natural for explanatory graphics to replace text (visual abstracts, for example) and for research posters to consist of headlines for interesting projects rather than complete information. They have studied TED/TEDx presentations on YouTube and understand the value of a passionate and individual lecturing style. Many of them see their bachelors, masters or Ph.D. as a platform for career roles where communication is at the center – from entrepreneurship right through to science journalism.

In fact, I would like to say that it is a privilege for all of us to find ourselves in this period of upheaval – out with the old and in with the new!

Olle Bergman, freelance writer and lecturer; project leader of Crastina – “the new wave of communicators of science”. (Translation from Swedish by Michael Hinton)

After reading the unusually well-written prose of the science blog Espresso Science, I made the following reflection:

Producing readable copy with no apparent style always works.

Being the nimble wordsmith, skilfully forging exquisite prose may very occasionally work wonders and give your message extra oomph. But most likely, stuffing the text full of various style elements from the book of rhetoric will make the reader’s mind wander and lead it astray in a wondrous forest of daydreaming, far from the sunlit pastures of the actual content.

What we really should aim for as writers, is well-crafted texts with just a pinch of deliberate style to create a personal voice.

I have always thought of the inverted pyramid as an editorial technique which makes life simpler for both writer and editor—a pragmatic way to serve a front-loaded text to a reader who refuses to wait or concentrate.

But then I stumbled over this excellent article by Chip Scanlan from the Poynter Institute where he writes:

It’s also an extremely useful tool for thinking and organizing because it forces the reporter to sum up the point of the story in a single paragraph.

So true – as soon as you have run your notes and source texts through the Five Ws machinery your text will write itself. The lesson to be learned here is that five minutes of focused thinking can replace one hour of aimless writing agony.