Word choice. So important. Not just to advertising companies and politicians. Scientists and science writers should likewise pay attention to the words they use. Not because they want the most bang for their syllables, but because words can be misleading. Inaccurate. They can slant and spin the issue. And no good scientist wants that. Does she?
Two recent news releases about research into religious matters set off the language-police siren in my mind. Oh sure, the perceived mis-use of language may seem slight . . . but the smallest turn of a vehicle steering wheel can add up to a big influence. By “vehicle,” I’m talking public perception.
The first I encountered over at ScienceDaily: Doctors’ Religious Beliefs Strongly Influence End-of-Life Decisions, Study Finds
The finding, as worded in the lead . . .
Atheist or agnostic doctors are almost twice as willing to take decisions that they think will hasten the end of a very sick patient’s life as doctors who are deeply religious, suggests research published online in the Journal of Medical Ethics. [emphases added]
Interesting.
Word choice question #1: Why take decisions and the the customary make decisions? Seems to have more radical connotations to me.
Word choice question #2: Why the following switch-a-roo with terms?
And doctors with a strong faith are less likely to discuss this type of treatment with the patient concerned, the research shows.
I thought the variable in question was religious belief. Why the use of strong faith? That term seems to have slightly different connotations. Will it steer people’s perceptions away from the bedrock of the more scientific elements? I wonder.
In the following sentence we do not see the same type of verbal polish applied to the other extreme:
But irrespective of specialty, doctors who described themselves as “extremely” or “very non-religious” were almost twice as likely to report having taken these kinds of decisions as those with a religious belief.
Why not refer to these individuals as “doctors with fully naturalistic worldviews” (or some shorter alternative)? And why was the adverb extremely applied only to the strongly non-religious? Why not extremely religious? Hmm. Extreme seems to have negative connotations.
The final sentence pulls yet another verbal switch:
The author concludes that the relationship between doctors’ values and their clinical decision making needs to be acknowledged much more than it is at present.
Wait. I thought we were talking religious beliefs and lack thereof. How did values get in there? Granted, they probably do play a role. But good science and science writing plays no such shell games; it makes clear when it has veered away from the research results into a more speculative area.
As for the values and decision-making, I can hear some folk spinning the finding now. Non-religious doctors, you know, atheists, do not value human life like religious doctors do, thus they are more likely to pull the plug and or let their patients die.
That would be quite a spin. For another possible interpretation might be: Non-religious doctors feel freer to heed the wishes of their patients and/or to help ease their suffering by allowing a quicker, less painful death. Or something.
Yet another spin: The beliefs of strongly religious doctors cause them to ignore the patient’s needs and suffering at end-of-life.
Words. How you use them makes a world of difference. They can paint a picture that may inaccurately reflect the complex truth of an issue.
The second article a ran into over at EurekAlert — Study: Generation X more loyal to religion. Notice in the following how the choice of just one word can have such important connotations.
As Generation X continues to grow older, this loyalty may translate into a more stable nation in terms of its religiosity, he said.
A stable nation. Stability is good, right? What if the word had been static? What if the the words were, “may translate into a less dynamic nation”? Or “less progressive”?
Okay, I’ll shut down my verbal radar and quiet the siren. For now. Maybe the above is much ado about little. But then again, maybe it isn’t.
Is communicating science a ‘catch 22′-type affair?
Are scientists caught up in an ivory tower of academia and thus have difficulties relating to the lowly, common woman and man?
Some have argued this point in one form or another. And, as I see it, there may be a modicum of merit to it.
What’s the pertinent part of the problem? Academic language. At least according to a recent article by one of those academic types. In Academic Language Impedes Students’ Ability to Learn Science, Expert Argues you will find this description of an important element to the problem:
In addition to having its own specialized vocabulary, academic language is more concise, using complex grammatical structures to express complicated ideas in as few words as possible. [all emphases mine]
This specialized way of communicating impedes the dissemination of science to students and the average Janes and Joes. So what to do?
Many apparently believe the solution is to dumb-down and sexy-up science. Massive rock hurtling through space, Earth in its cross-hairs!
While I’m all for making the findings of science more accessible, I believe this can result in writing that violates scientific values and methods. Objectivity, precision, accuracy, etc. And that is the catch 22. How to make science interesting and engaging without venturing into the realm of salesmanship and quasi-fables.
Fortunately, there is more than one solution to the problem. The short-term solution is for academics to come down out of their tower, to put on baseball caps and sunglasses, play some hip-hop music and rap about their findings. Or something not quite as extreme.
The longer term solution, the one I favor, is addressed in the article:
Catherine E. Snow, a professor at the Harvard University Graduate School of Education and the Boston research director for the Strategic Education Research Partnership (SERP), makes the case that students need to be taught academic language in order to learn science and other subjects.
Yes. Rather than fully dumbing-down science, educate the audience. Lift them up. All students, from ages 5 to 105. Those in school, those attending hard-knocks university.
If you ask me, the ivory tower is a good thing. For one, the view is outstanding. Let’s better open it up to the general public.
[recycled post - first appeared here]
Sometimes it can be difficult, when reading an article about a recent study and not the study itself, to determine whether the writing of the news release / the reporting or the science itself was a piece of junk.
The recent ScienceDaily article, Overbearing Parents Foster Obsessive Children, New Study Finds, reflects both. And this is unfortunate, for I have found other sites, such as PsychCentral and Medical News Today, that (mis?)inform their readers a new truth has been discovered.
Check out the description of the actual research methods:
Mageau focused on 588 musicians and athletes between the ages of six and 38 who practice their hobby at different levels (beginner, intermediate and expert). Mageau used a Likert-type scale to measure how parents support the autonomy of their child.
She also evaluated the psychological well being of the child regarding their hobby, which in this case was piano, saxophone, skiing or swimming.
Likert-scale . . . evaluated the psychological well being regarding a hobby . . .
Talk about fuzzy variables and indirect measures. Any conclusions should be stated in an overtly tentative fashion. Parenting may . . . study suggests . . .
The researcher provides this explanation (interpretation of her results, or was it her pet hunch heading into the study?):
Youngsters with a harmonious passion had parents or an entourage that supported them, while those with an obsessive passion were raised in an oppressive environment.
What the heck is a harmonious passion? One that sings in four parts? How can I get hold of a harmonious passion meter? Do I set the whole subject on it, or is it more of a probe, inserted directly into . . . ?
Okay, the social sciences are rife with complexity. That said, in any field taking an inch worth of data and running an mile with it should raise flags.
But who cares about data?
I do. As should any critical thinker.
In a better study (i.e., less junky) I encountered this headline: Maternal Depression And Controlling Behavior Associated With Increased Stress Response In Infants.
“Associated.” A much more reasonable (justified) announcement. And consider this ‘graph in contrast to the above:
A new study being published in Biological Psychiatry on September 15th suggests an association between a history of depression in the mothers, a particular style of mothering, “maternal overcontrol”, and increased stress reactivity of their infants.
“Suggests.” Again, more reasonable. The lead author is quoted as saying:
Practically, the open question is that of the long-term effects: are these infants at increased risk for psychological or physical stress-related illnesses later in life. If so, why?
Hear hear! The results of one study never provide us with a complete truth. Instead, they offer suggestions and invite further research.
Oh sure, it is exciting to jump to conclusions. But we do so at the risk of error. And, if we happen to be holding a megaphone, of misleading others.
The best in news parody* — a sampling of recent headlines from The Onion:
Opinion: If I Hadn’t Found Jesus, I’d Feel Pretty Shitty About My Crimes
Man Read Somewhere They Proved Thing He Just Made Up
Really Fun Toy Banned Because Of 3 Stupid Dead Kids
* Parody, from on Online Etymology* Dictionary
1590s (first recorded use in English is in Ben Jonson), from or in imitation of L. parodia “parody,” from Gk. paroidia “burlesque song or poem,” from para- “beside, parallel to” (in this case, “mock-”) + oide “song, ode” (see ode).
* Etymology
late 14c., from Gk. etymologia, from etymon “true sense” (neut. of etymos “true,” related to eteos “true”) + logos “word.” In classical times, of meanings; later, of histories.
I wonder when the expression “It’s not rocket science” will fade from use. Although the current definition of the term is less than a century old, it is already feeling out-dated, at least when coupled to “science.”
Why? The original technology involved in rocket design and flight is relatively backwards next to . . . oh, say, that of an iPhone.
One day the eternal combustion engine represented the pinnacle of human achievement. A handful of decades later — the invention minus bells-and-whistles — is but a blunt hammer in an age of socket wrenches. Can’t wait ’til we move from that innovation to the next.
But back to rockets and the eyeblink of time that delineates their arch:
Rocket:
“projectile,” 1610s, from It. rocchetto “a rocket,” lit. “a bobbin,” dim. of rocca “a distaff,” so called because of cylindrical shape. The Italian word probably is from a Germanic source (cf. O.H.G. rocko “distaff,” O.N. rokkr), from P.Gmc. *rukka-, from PIE base *rug- “to spin.” Originally “fireworks rocket,” meaning “device propelled by a rocket engine” first recorded 1919; rocket-ship first attested 1927. The verb meaning “to spring like a rocket” is from 1883. Rocket science in the figurative sense of “difficult, complex process or topic” is attested by 1985. Rocket scientist is from 1952. [Online Etymology Dictionary]
—
Wow. That’s a lot of tests. But that’s what science does.
Okay, let’s start with that last test. For “mental abilities test” think IQ. Stanford-Binet, Woodcock-Johnson, Wechsler, Super Mario Bros, etc. For decades now, people in the domain of psychometrics (psycho = psychological, metrics = tools of measurement) have known that such tests can be culturally biased. And so they devised tests of their tests to check for bias.
That’s two tests down, one to go.
Problem solved. But maybe not. And I do mean “maybe.” I’ll get to that shortly. A new study, published in the July issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology, has concluded that these tests for biases in mental abilities tests are flawed. [source: ScienceDaily]
And how did the researchers make this determination? By testing the tests for bias in mental abilities tests.
Bingo! That’s a trifecta of testing!
As for the “maybe,” a cautionary point comes to mind. The study consisted of a computer simulation investigating “an amalgam of scores representing a vast sample of commonly used tests, including civil service or other pre-employment exams and university entrance exams.” In essence, a needle of bias was inserted into a huge haystack of data, and the bias was missed by commonly used tests for bias. I wonder, will this finding hold true for real-world cases?
Still, something to consider. And further test. That’s four!
Finally, for word-nerds like myself, here is the etymology of what this post is all about, Alfie:
test
late 14c., “small vessel used in assaying precious metals,” from O.Fr. test, from L. testum “earthen pot,” related to testa “piece of burned clay, earthen pot, shell” (cf. L. testudo “tortoise”) and texere “to weave” (cf. Lith. tistas “vessel made of willow twigs;” see texture). Sense of “trial or examination to determine the correctness of something” is recorded from 1590s. The verb in this sense is from 1748. The connecting notion is “ascertaining the quality of a metal by melting it in a pot.” [via the Online Etymology Dictionary]
