Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:35:27.774Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

I-O psychologists as the leaders in the “Wittgensteinian Shortfall” recovery: Improving our science communication

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2022

Nicholas A. Smith  and
Ann Hergatt Huffman
Nicholas A. Smith*
Affiliation:
OHSU-PSU School of Public Health, Portland, OR, USA
Ann Hergatt Huffman
Affiliation:
Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA
*
*Corresponding author. Email: nicholas.smith@pdx.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , June 2022 , pp. 277 - 279
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Both authors are credited with contributing equally to this manuscript.

References

Attridge, D. (1991). Arche-Jargon. Qui Parle, 5(1), 41–52. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20685934 Google Scholar
Brownell, S. E., Price, J. V., & Steinman, L. (2013). Science communication to the general public: Why we need to teach undergraduate and graduate students this skill as part of their formal scientific training. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education, 12(1), E6–E10.Google Scholar
Bullock, O. M., Colón Amill, D., Shulman, H. C., & Dixon, G. N. (2019). Jargon as a barrier to effective science communication: Evidence from metacognition. Public Understanding of Science, 28(7), 845–853. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519865687 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hales, H. H., Williams, K. D., & Rector, J. (2017, January 31). Alienating the audience: How abbreviations hamper scientific communication. Association for Psychological Science Observer. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/alienating-the-audience-how-abbreviations-hamper-scientific-communication Google Scholar
Koopman, J., Conway, J. M., Dimotakis, N., Tepper, B. J., Lee, Y. E., Rogelberg, S. G., & Lount, R. B., Jr. (2021). Does CWB repair negative affective states, or generate them? Examining the moderating role of trait empathy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(10), 1493–1516. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000837 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuehne, L. M., & Olden, J. D. (2015). Opinion: Lay summaries needed to enhance science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(12), 3585–3586. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1500882112 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martínez, A., & Mammola, S. (2021). Specialized terminology reduces the number of citations of scientific papers. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 288(1948), Article 20202581. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2020.2581 Google ScholarPubMed
Maurer, T. J., & Lippstreu, M. (2008). Expert vs. general working sample differences in KSAO “improvability” ratings and relationships with measures relevant to occupational and organizational psychology. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81(4), 813–829. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317907X266356 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nation, ISP. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne des Langues Vivantes, 63(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.63.1.59 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patoko, N., & Yazdanifard, R. (2014). The impact of using many jargon words, while communicating with the organization employees. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 4(10), 567–572. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajibm.2014.410061 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plavén-Sigray, P., Matheson, G. J., Schiffler, B. C., & Thompson, W. H. (2017). The readability of scientific texts is decreasing over time. eLife, 6, Article e27725. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.27725 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rogelberg, S. G., King, E. B., & Alonso, A. (2022). How we can bring I-O psychology science and evidence-based practices to the public. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives in Science & Practice, 15(2), 259–272.Google Scholar
Sharon, A. J., & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2014). Measuring mumbo jumbo: A preliminary quantification of the use of jargon in science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 23(5), 528–546. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512469916 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stableford, S., & Mettger, W. (2007). Plain language: A strategic response to the health literacy challenge. Journal of Public Health Policy, 28(1), 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jphp.3200102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tumpey, A. J., Daigle, D., & Nowak, G. (2018). Communicating during an outbreak or public health investigation. In Rasmussen, S. A. & Goodman, R. A. (Eds.), The CDC field epidemiology manual. Centers for Disease Control. https://www.cdc.gov/eis/field-epi-manual/chapters/Communicating-Investigation.html Google Scholar