8 Comments
User's avatar
Kevin McMullen, MD's avatar

Such a difficult balance to strike. So much of the life of a physician boils down to this question. How do we compress ideas and language so that people can understand them without losing meaning? How do we choose which word to use with a given pwrson?

Femke de Jong's avatar

Indeed it is, that makes jargon kind of a double edged sword. Usefull and unhelpfull at the same time.

Plants in Plain Language's avatar

In my actual day job, we're frequently asking lawyers and policy wonks to "embrace, replace, or erase" jargon. I love a good "embracing." It's empowering for readers!

Femke de Jong's avatar

It is indeed. Although I also try to avoid using too many jargon in one text as it will become simply overwhelming.

Francis Chillemi's avatar

i do not characterize this study as “gatekeeping”.this is an attempt to skew science to social science.careful distinctions are warranted

Femke de Jong's avatar

?????? You do not make sense. Telling what a scientific jargon means is not skewing plant science to social science. It opens up the field of plant science to the public.

Francis Chillemi's avatar

hi. i recognize several issues promoting approaches to botany,plant science,genetics and applied horticulture.personally,i try not to be counterproductive but rather prefer directing people stating with university coursework:Botany 101

Femke de Jong's avatar

Not every one has the time and money to invest in coursework. Beside there is a thing called science communication and journalism in which the science is communicated to the public using words they understand. If this makes them interested in taking a course on the subject all the better, but telling people who are interested that the only way they can access that knowledge by doing a course is simple gatekeeping and unnecessary.

That also for not explaining jargon.