3 ms·
It would be great to hear more about the communication section. For instance is it better to offer an ambitious summary first, followed by a deep exploration i
by rz2k 14y ago
It would be great to hear more about the communication section.
For instance is it better to offer an ambitious summary first, followed by a deep exploration into the data and methods to understand how any conclusion may have been determined?
I am loathe to put something out there might overstate a point that will be run with without a sincere understanding, but I also fear that if the details are provided first without a thorough explanation of the nuances, that there is a danger they will be used carelessly.
I suppose my question is, have others have found it preferable to start with a headline then support that headline with caveats, or to create a detective story and walk people through arriving at a conclusion?
It's little like the conundrum of TED Talks (or a much of science news reporting). A very highly produced talk will establish an argument for an important adjustment of conventional wisdom in some field, only to create new problems because to people outside of the field it sounds like the final word.
- sadga 14y agoMake the strongest claim you can support.
- rz2k 14y agoTo be honest, I think that it is reckless to disavow any responsibility for what consumers of information you produce will do with it in your own organization. Going back to TED Talks, ridiculous analysis and comments citing a TED talk are often based on a talk that itself was not ridiculous. I asked about elaboration on that area of responsibility because I'd assume that he had a relatively small audience of highly capable people, yet even so had more intimate contact with the specifics and had to struggle with just how to present that more full knowledge in a concise but still responsible way.