Writing Outside the Academic Box

Vol. 41, No. 3, July 2012
Printer friendly version of Newsletter

by Michal Meyer (Chemical Heritage Foundation)

A few years ago, when I worked for the History of Science Society as the Newsletter editor, I remember Jay Malone telling me that most popular history of science books are not written by historians of science. I never really understood why. I now work for the Chemical Heritage Foundation as the editor in chief of Chemical Heritage magazine, and I think I have a better grasp of the intricacies of non-academic history of science. Lynn K. Nyhart's article in the January issue of the HSS Newsletter pushed me further in thinking about "them," the non-expert audiences for history of science.

My job as editor of a magazine that sits at the intersections of science, history, and culture has given me a different perspective, that of someone with one foot in the academic world and another in the story-telling world. The magazine includes short articles and longer features. While in-house writers and interns produce many of the shorter pieces, most of the features are written by resident fellows at CHF who are either working on their PhDs or are post PhD. All have proven a delight to work with. They have also crystallized for me why so few historians write popular history of science: historians are trained to produce arguments not narrative arcs. Their core audience is other historians of science who will judge an article or a book according to criteria that are mostly irrelevant to non-expert readers. This does not mean that historians of science cannot or should not write for other audiences, but it does mean being attentive to audience expectations and to writing style. So here are some thoughts on different audiences and the varied uses to which history of science is put to use in Chemical Heritage.

High-school chemistry teachers tell me they are looking for context and stories to enliven the science they teach and which the textbooks ignore. These teachers want an entertaining Whig approach to history as a way to catch their students' interest. For example, a short piece that includes Isaac Newton chasing counterfeiters may lead them to the chemistry of rare earth metals through modern anti-counterfeiting techniques that use these rare earths. A useful parallel is high-school STEM education. The question of how best to encourage youngsters to pursue science often comes up at CHF talks and symposiums that focus on modern science. One answer keeps cropping up: kids must fall in love with science. Only after falling in love will they be motivated enough for the hard slog required to learn science. Stories about science—whether it's the discovery of PKU, the lives of two African-American chemist brothers, or the history of Spanish-language comics devoted to the heroes of science—give students a way to connect to what can often be a forbidding subject. This is not history for history's sake. At its best this approach will give students a taste for history of science and a sense of its intrinsic value, which may lead them to take a college course or two in the subject. These students will discover that there is a world worth exploring behind the stage on which science plays out. At its worst such an approach does nothing more than sugar coat the science to make it go down more easily. In both cases the value of history of science lies purely in its utility to science teachers. (I neglect high school history teachers here because subject boundaries make integrating history of science difficult.)

Another audience is scientists who read to discover the history of their discipline and who might also wish to provide some historical context for their own students. Recently a professor e-mailed to let us know that a feature story on a World War II natural rubber project was a perfect match for his economic botany class. The guayule story included the fall of Pearl Harbor, the loss of a vital wartime commodity, and interned Japanese-Americans struggling to prove their patriotism through their attempts to turn a wild plant into a new source for rubber. This article was adapted by the author Mark Finlay from his book, Growing American Rubber, and involved "storifying" one section of his book while retaining some of the historical complexities. A strong narrative arc and interesting characters will carry readers through more nuanced history of science, if only to find out what happens at the end. People and their trials and tribulations keep non-experts reading for longer than do argument and theory. Object biographies can also work if the objects have their own story arcs.

Sometime scientists are upset by how science is presented in all its messy glory. We recently received a letter from a reader angered by the non-rational aspects of science in a recent issue, which included a short article on Anton Mesmer and an interview with a chemical engineer who doubts evolution by natural selection. We published the letter and used the opportunity to respond, making a case that our job is not to glorify science as an ongoing triumph of reason over irrationality by genius heroes. Instead, our job is simply to tell the stories of chemistry with as little tampering and distortion as possible. Our job is also to reintegrate science into its broader cultural context. A few weeks after publication I was pleasantly surprised to receive a positive response from this previously critical reader. Success, one person at a time!

The third and most nebulous category of readers I call the intellectually curious—those who may have an interest in science and its history but have little to no background in the field. They read to expand their knowledge and also for pleasure and so will not slog through dense articles. Good stories, rather than specific subject matter, are essential to reach this type of audience.

One possible criticism of the magazine is that we focus on storytelling rather than real history of science. There's certainly a kernel of truth to this, but then our goal is to reach out to people, which means going to where they are rather than expecting them to come to us. No one outside of academia is required to read history of science and historians of science write mostly for other historians. This is a long-winded way of saying that historians of science are usually not an audience for this kind of writing, but they certainly can be contributors.

In my experience, historians of science are keen to write for wider audiences, and they can do so very engagingly, but only after they consciously give up writing for other historians. In their writing for this non-expert audience they do not need to position themselves in the field or compare their arguments with that of colleague X or Y. In other words, historians writing for broader audiences have no need to show their expertise in order to be taken seriously. A PhD after a name automatically grants expert status. A colleague who writes popular history of science advises prospective authors to not hide behind qualifications. That is, if the mass of evidence points to something having happened even if there is no direct evidence, write as if it actually happened. Qualifying destroys narrative, so be bold and disregard historical niceties. After all, works not aimed at academics are unlikely to be cited by academics.

This kind of writing is currently not valued in academia in terms of tenure and promotion decisions. It is also takes time away from academic work. Our magazine contributors tend to be either fellows in residence at CHF or already tenured scholars. For those willing to put in the time and effort to reach a broader audience, whether via a magazine article or a book, here are some questions to ponder. As author, what do you want to achieve? Who do you envision your audience to be? How will you engage this audience? And as you put your fingers to the keyboard remember that you are not writing for other historians of science. "Storify" your work. Simplify a little and find the good tales on which to hang arguments; include compelling characters along with their conflicts and motivations; avoid academic language. In sum, bring your characters and their world to life for the reader.

Good luck!

History of Science Society

Writing Outside the Academic Box

Quick Links....

Primary Navigation

Search

History of Science Society

Frequently Used Sites