Last year I took a pickleball class just to see what the hype was about. Now I get it.
Pickleball has a low barrier to entry (just a paddle), it’s social, and you can basically choose how much physical exertion you want to put in. This makes it a game almost anyone can play, where teenagers and grandparents can jam on the same courts.
As I’ve taken more lessons and learned more about the game and its techniques, I’ve started noticing recreational players exhibiting a lot of bad habits.
Interestingly, these habits persist because the players who haven’t had much formal training don’t know any better. The same is true for scientific researchers who habitually—but unintentionally—communicate in a way that makes it harder for others to understand their work.
The thing is, these bad habits aren’t fatal. But they do make it harder to achieve your goal, whether that goal is influencing decision-makers with your research or getting a little plastic ball over the net.
Let’s look at them one at a time.
1. They haven’t been given the proper instruction.
Many pickleball players have no formal training because it’s relatively easy to be somewhat successful at getting the ball over the net without it.
Similarly, scientists are routinely required (and expected!) to present their research with no presentation skills training at all. None. Zippo. Zilch.
When training isn’t required to achieve passable results and isn’t part of standard operating procedure, it makes sense that people don’t seek it out. And while some researchers become reasonably competent communicators on their own, most remain mediocre. Not because they lack intelligence or expertise, but because they lack instruction.
For those learning a sport, such as pickleball, lessons and classes are widely available. But for scientists who have to convey complex material that goes beyond generic tips and tricks, access to research communication coaching that teaches them how to do so is rare.*
2. They see everyone else do it, so it must be OK.
The classic “wisdom of the masses”: Sometimes it’s helpful; sometimes it leads you straight off a cliff.
I routinely see pickleball players do things on the court that every class I’ve ever taken and every YouTube video I’ve ever seen explicitly says not to do. But players do them anyway because they see other, slightly better players do them. This leads the less-skilled player to copy that behavior.
And similarly, that is how we get “standard” research presentations that are unengaging and unintelligible but safe for the presenter.
The logic goes, “If everyone else presents this way, it must be reasonable.” (I’m looking at you, slides with the titles “Methods” and “Results,” wasting valuable space that could instead feature more useful information!)
3. They’re unaware of the lost opportunities.
Pickleball players employ countless micro and macro bad habits that make it harder for them to hit a good shot. And research scientists exhibit just as many “standard” communication habits that make it harder for audiences to understand their presentations (e.g., copying figures and tables meant for publication into an oral presentation).
The key word here is harder, but not impossible. These bad habits don’t always impede the goal, but what is the cost when they do?
In pickleball, the feedback is immediate. The ball goes into the net or goes out of bounds. But the consequences of a mediocre scientific presentation? Less clear.
Because the consequences of a mediocre presentation are subtle, it’s tempting to assume they don’t exist. But they do.
For example, depending on how it’s communicated, a research status update could leave stakeholders thinking, “Impressive, she’s doing a great job,” or it could leave them thinking, “Huh? I assume she’s doing it right.”
A presentation is an opportunity to make people think, “That group is doing interesting research,” or they could think, “Well, at least the slides were pretty.”
With presentations, just as in sports, there are no do-overs. Without good technique, opportunities to influence and impress are gone forever.
4. They don’t want to put in the effort.
Until you are taught how to do something in a better way, it’s hard to appreciate how many opportunities you may have lost before. But even when people are shown a better way, many simply don’t want to put in the effort.
In sports, improvement requires time and physical exertion. In scientific communication, it requires adopting a different way of thinking about your work and spending more time and mental energy upfront—especially at first.
The upside? If you are willing to learn the techniques to make your research communications as strong as the research itself, you won’t just stand out, you’ll tower above the casual players.
The bottom line
Most scientists don’t need to work harder to be more persuasive and influential. They already work hard. They just need to learn the techniques to help them better communicate. And that skill, like any skill, can be learned.
*Until now. I deliver practical workshops and ongoing support for research teams and individuals who want to communicate complex science more effectively, so decision-makers understand it, trust it, and act on it.