It's Not Rocket Science.
It is convenient to criticise the internet as source of information. But it would be much more constructive to improve it.
Diana Runge | 21. April 2021
A few weeks ago, the meme shown on the left came up on one of my social media feeds. The plain black on white text reads: „I did1 my own2 research3“, with the footnotes changing it to: „I watched someone else’s shitty youtube [sic] video.“ The message appeared to be as simple as the design: a straight-forward criticism on people, who use social media as their main source of information.
An amusing meme that leads to serious questions about why people prefer referring to sources of their own choice rather than trusting official information.
My initial reaction was one of amusement and agreement. It is a well-known and often lamented fact that social media play in increasing role in the dissemination of information – and likewise in the dissemination of fake news. News and information snippets in social media are easy to access, to process and to share. And because the media is allegedly ‘social’ and tweets, memes, posts, etc. are often shared by a friend, people seem to believe what they see rather than question it. The contrary appears to be true for official information sources.
Ministries, administrative bodies, scientific institutions, companies and the traditional media are often seen as prejudiced or – even worse – driven by a specific mission. They are thought to be less concerned with transparency than with adhering to their own agenda. This may include justifying a policy, pushing through a plan or project, enforcing
regulations etc. The distrust is even greater when official information does not correspond to personal opinions and beliefs. Little surprising, if official information is deemed not trustworthy and not believable, then ‘critical minds’ have no choice but to do their ‘own research’. The internet has the answer to every question and provides evidence supporting each and every opinion. Therefore, ‘private investigations’ are always successful and the information found always confirms what the ‘investigators’ have known or believed all along.
Denying people the ability to obtain their own information is a sign for professional arrogance.
My quest for the source and context of the meme led me to a science blog post. The author describes himself as a software developer and former road-racing cyclist. He urges people to stop saying they did their ‘own research’. He states: “You didn’t research anything and it’s highly probable that you don’t even know how to do so.” The blogpost argues that if a person does not follow a full set of acknowledged and proven scientific methods, then “You didn’t [swearword deleted] research anything.” [1]
For one thing, there appears to be a semantic problem. According to the Oxford Learners Dictionary, the word research means: “a careful study of a subject, especially in order to discover new facts or information about it“. [2] As a colloquial expression, however, it may simply mean searching for information, facts or explanations. This search may be more akin to a rummage around a dusty attic than a systematic approach to gaining knowledge in a scientific manner. However, the attic is the internet, which is not dusty at all as it gets continuously filled with fresh content.
For another thing, a notion like this reveals the unwavering belief that the superiority of expertise must not be questioned by ordinary people. It is true that most people are not experts in the methods and findings of medical research, engineering, construction, data processing, environmental sciences etc. However, dismissing their attempts to gain knowledge on these and other subjects as ‘unprofessional’ only serves to discredit the professionals. What is more, professional arrogance is yet another reason why people prefer “shitty youtube videos” over expert websites and publications.
Science, technology and politics endeavour to properly transfer information. But those distributing fake news are often faster – and a lot more creative.
Science and technical communications have come a long way. There are many scientists and experts of all professions, including politics, who put a lot of effort into making knowledge accessible and communicating findings properly. In their endeavours they are supported by communication experts and professional journalists. More and more often, however, information – or rather: disinformation – gets spread by other agents, with no regard to responsibility, reason, truth, fairness or conscience.
The internet provides almost unlimited access to information worldwide. Likewise, it provides unlimited access to fake news and rumours, to accidental mistakes and deliberate lies. The difference: Fake news pretty much spread themselves thanks to the use of memorable messages, funny pictures and short videos. In contrast, accessing ‘properly researched’ facts and figures often leads to a somewhat cumbersome odyssey across a sea of monotonous websites, long articles in technical lingo and unreadable statistics. But it does not have to be this way.
From short cartoons to elaborate digital stories: There are multiple ways to communicate facts and figures and make it easier for people to do their own research.
There are many excellent examples for the creative and comprehendible communication of facts and figures. The following three cases only serve to illustrate different approaches, yet they are by no means complete.
The animated comic “Flatten the Curve” by cartoonist Toby Morris in cooperation with microbiologist and science communicator Siouxsie Wiles is one of the great examples of how complex issues can be communicated in such a way that they are both scientifically correct and easy to understand as well as fun to share on social media. [3]
The digital reportage “Road to Clean Energy” (BBC) by author Simon Jack is another example of how scientific insights can be turned into gripping content. The data is translated into comprehendible visualisations and accompanied by compelling images. The text, albeit still technical, is easy to read. [4]
For those who find ‘Flatten the Curve’ a bit too simple and ‘Road to Clean Energy’ a bit too complex, explainer videos offer a modern, interactive and attractive way to transfer information and key messages. One example is Mobile Muster’s “Why recycle your mobile phone”. [5] The video is less than one and a half minutes long. But is packed with easy to understand information. There is even time for a tongue-in-cheek reference to individual responsibility, totally avoiding the moral high ground and therefore in all probability a lot more effective.
The proof is in the dialogue: If scientists, economists, technic experts and politicians really do want to improve the spread of trustworthy information, they need to talk – and they need to listen.
Last but not least: Direct interaction is a long proven and successful way to assist peoples ‘own research’. An open dialogue leads to more transparency and increases the exchange of information. What is more, it also helps building trust in scientists, experts and politicians.
Without a doubt, debating with the public, especially with the critical public, takes time and effort. The same holds true for providing information on the channels that people prefer (i.e. social media rather than scientific debate forums) and in the formats they prefer (i.e. memes and videos rather than research papers and multi-level graphs). But fighting the distribution and negative effects of fake news and false statistics takes even more time and effort and with even less chance of success.
So quite contrary to the message the meme referred to in the beginning leads to believe: People can and should do their own research. It is in the hands of experts and communicators to make sure they do not stop at ‘watching someone else’s shitty YouTube video’.
------------------------------
[1] M. Özgür Nevres: „Please stop saying you “researched it“. November 2020. Blogpost on
https://ourplnt.com/i-did-my-own-research/#axzz6lmBrzD8F
[2] Oxford Learners Dictionary: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/research_1?q=research
[3]Flatten the Curve, GIF published on Wikimedia by Toby Morris and Siouxsie Wiles, March 2020: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Covid-19-curves-graphic-social-v3.gif
[4] Simon Jack, Lora Jones, Sana Jasemi (graphics): The road to clean energy. BBC 2021. www.bbc.co.uk/news/extra/DmZ6C9zSsR/road_to_clean_energy#group-Wind-power-GKNCtp2ebl
[5] Mobile Muster: https://www.mobilemuster.com.au/staging/recycling/, video produced by Vidico
Photo at top of the page by Brett Jordan on Unsplash