What is a blog? Why do we write blogs? What do we write about and who do we write them for? Those were some of the questions discussed at Science Online London, on 22 August at the Royal Institution. Some great discussion also took place at the FringeFrivolous Unconference event at the offices of Mendeley the evening before.
It is generally accepted (among bloggers!) that blogging has a role to play in science – but what is it? Within the category of science there are many kinds of blogs out there – blogs written by professional science writers as showcases of their work, science news blogs that report new results, blogs at publishing companies that invite discussion on their publications, personal blogs by professional scientists. Each of these have their own purpose and audience, opportunities and challenges.
Not in your job description…
Many professional scientists have started keeping blogs in recent years, and these can give a fascinating insight into their working lives. Some focus entirely on the research, like mathematician Terry Tao‘s excellent What’s New blog, while others are more of a personal space. In astronomy there are a number of senior academics who write very openly and amusingly. A whole session at Solo09 was dedicated to the topic of “Blogging for Impact”, with Mark Henderson, Science Editor at The Times, psychologist Dave Munger, and Danier MacArthur of the Sanger Institute, as main speakers.
While Munger talked enthusiastically (from Second Life, no less) about the positive impact his blogging has had on his life and career, MacArthur injected some realism by pointing out that not all employers are as understanding as Munger’s. Time spent blogging, particularly for young researchers, is time away from the proverbial telescope, and this can be seen as unproductive. Despite the promise of the internet in new avenues for communication and collaboration, the bottom line in a science career remains: where are the publications?
Until we can demonstrate the value of our blogs in real terms – papers published, collaborations started, grants won – keeping a blog will remain a fringe (frivolous?) activity that takes away, rather than adds, to a researcher’s profile.
One way to increase the impact of a blog that talks about research is to sign up with a service like ResearchBlogging.org, which trawls its member blogs for citations and provides a per-subject listing. You may have seen their nifty little logo appear on my blog in recent weeks too! Editors then highlight some posts of choice on the front page. The idea behind ResearchBlogging is to show the science that other researchers are interested in, not just the stories that get the best PR.
… Or is it?
Some institutions and companies have picked up on the blogging movement among researchers and are attempting to harness it as a PR tool, by encouraging their employees to keep a blog hosted on the institution’s own servers. Researchers blogging about their day to day work can certainly increase a university’s visibility and appeal to a broader audience. Blogs can even be useful teaching tools, providing additional info to lectures, discussing problems, even answering questions from students even.
At my institute, for example, the weekly Galaxies Journal Club meeting uses a blog where anyone can post an interesting figure they’ve come across for discussion in the meeting.
Of course we scientists don’t just blog about research. We have our coffee breaks for that. We have other opinions too and we’re not afraid to share them. How does an institute deal with its scientists’ opinions that don’t reflect its overall position? Or what if a scientist uses his university blog space to expressviews that cause an emabarrassment? Does the scientist’s opinion now suddenly reflect the position of their employer? Should the institution sanction what gets published? A well-known precedent was set by David Colquhoun, Professor of Pharmacology at University College London, some of whose views expressed on his university-hosted blog caused the college to ask him to remove his content – and quietly, if possible.
If institutes want their scientist bloggers only to write nice things, why not just hire a PR department to write the blogs? (oh right, we have those already).
The concept of blogging clearly appeals to many scientists for a variety of reasons and I’m very interested to see in what direction it will all evolve. I myself am still experimenting with what I want to write about, how I want to write it, and what I will get out.
If you have any opinions on the matter, and nowhere to blog them, leave me a comment.
Connect