#3MT or how to build engagement in your research

Just picture it: You have only 3 minutes to present the research that took you three years (or more) to conduct from start to finish. And you must do it in a clear, compelling, and engaging manner, without using any fancy words or scientific jargon, for an audience of non-specialists! These are the premises of the Three Minute Thesis (3MT®) competition developed by the University of Queensland in Australia and held for the first time in 2008.

How did I try to build engagement in my research?

After finally submitting my PhD thesis in July 2023, I jumped at the opportunity to enter the local #3MT competition at Rhodes University. That is in the Eastern Cape of South Africa. I took up this challenge to transform my 500-pages long thesis into a captivating short talk. I am a marine biologist and I have been studying the influence of microscopic shell-boring parasites on ecological aspects of mussel bed ecosystems on the South African rocky shores. I have been communicating on biological and ecological scientific topics for a while, by creating visual posters, giving longer oral presentations, or simply sharing pictures I took of animals, mushrooms, and plants I like. But creating such a short talk, that was uncharted territory! Now, I was facing several barriers:

• How do I efficiently summarize my research findings without sacrificing the details?
• How do I get people to care about my research?
• What story am I able to tell with my research?

With my newfound knowledge of science communication, I started writing the three-minute story that would summarize my research findings and leave the audience on the edge of their seat. The first step was to identify the key methodologies I used and the results I obtained during my research project. I tried my best to summarize them in a couple of short sentences, without any scientific jargon. I considered this was core of my talk, presenting the science work done and the hard evidence I gathered. In writing, this would be the method and the result sections. The second step was to point out what basic knowledge of the subject was required for my audience of non-specialists to understand the methodologies and results I presented. I am a curious person, and I cannot resist to go down a rabbit hole when researching a particular subject, especially in biology or ecology. But my audience did not need to know absolutely everything about mussels and their parasites. If they wanted to, they could always read the review paper I wrote last year. They needed just enough background knowledge to understand what my research was about, how I conducted this research, why it was important to research it and what were the implications of my research. In writing, we would consider this the introduction, the discussion, and the conclusion sections. Finally, the third and last step was to find a way to hook my audience, so they engage with my research. As I am passionate about sciency things in general, and especially about all the small critter that are often overlooked, I personally do not need a specific reason to get interested in mussels, worms, insects, or other invertebrates. This is not necessarily the case for a non-nerdy audience. Understandably, it was not easy for me to find a suitable hook. So, I made peace with myself and took a personal, arbitrary decision. Who does not enjoy a little play of words or a nice meal?

Once I was satisfied with my speech on paper, I read it aloud many times in search of any weird formulations I would not be able to pronounce in video or on the fateful day. Maybe you already picked on it, but I am not a native English speaker. Some sentences I wrote where impossible to pronounce correctly, so I tweaked them a bit to make them roll of the tongue. When my speech was polished to be said and not just read, it was time to find what energy I would give out and at which point. Changing speed or intonations while giving a speech allows to continuously grab the attention of the audience, a secret mastered by successful YouTubers. I am not sure I managed to implement such variations of energy in my speech, although I tried. I guess the more you do it, the better you get at it!

Here is the video I submitted for my participation at the local #3MT competition at my university. Let me know in the comments of the video or on this blog post what you think of it!

Why it can be difficult to touch an audience with some research subjects?

You are now privy to many secrets regarding mussels, the incredible ecosystem services they provide, and the parasites that can affect them. But you might ask yourself: So what? Mussels are food, and if there are no mussels anymore, we’ll eat something else. On top of that, mussels are not proudly majestic compared to a shark or a lion, or cuddly-looking like a bear or a fluffy goat. There is nothing wrong in seeing it that way, but it demonstrates a fundamental bias in science communication: research subjects are not intrinsically equal in their capability to reach, touch and involve the public. Why?

Firstly, understanding and appreciating research can require an extensive background knowledge. I came to learn throughout my studies and my research that scientists use jargon for a reason: one needs to precisely state what is talked about, in an efficient manner. It is easier to write and read a thousand times in a review paper the words ‘photoautotrophic euendoliths’ than ‘a group of microscopic organisms, morphologically and physiologically heterogeneous, that live and actively bore into relatively soluble phosphate or carbonate substrates, and that use energy from the sun to convert carbon dioxide and water into organic materials to be used in cellular functions’. Consequently, scientific articles can be a pain to read for a non-specialist, where all this jargon requires prior knowledge and understanding. Do not worry, though, because it is also a pain for specialists that are not specialists in this precise area of science. When communicating science, it is better to not use scientific jargon at the expense of precision. In the end, ‘photoautotrophic euendoliths’ becomes ‘microscopic shell-boring parasites’, which they are but not really. In my opinion, the main benefits of avoiding jargon are to maximize the chances that the audience understands the main points of the research and to not become boring through the repetitions of undefined, fancy, very long words. In this respect, it is logical that research topics that rely heavily on precise scientific concepts might feel trickier to communicate in layman’s terms.

Secondly, some research subjects will in essence be more engaging than others. I personally separate them in three arbitrary categories, that I broadly define with a lot of generalizations, as I am not an expert:

This was not to whine about the difficulty to communicate about unpopular research, that many scientists are passionate about, me included. Science communication is complex. The research topic might be riddled with jargon, or very far from people’s current interests. The format changes, from social media posts, posters, pictures, videos, twenty-minute talks at conferences, scientific articles, thesis, and three-minutes short talks (that I find very difficult to achieve).  Moreover, there is not a single audience that needs to be hooked on the research, but a myriad of audiences depending on the chosen communication medium. Finally, there is no right way to communicate. You can find tips online, attend science communication workshops, or copy the methods of a successful communicator. You might not get the same results because as we learn when doing science, everything depends on the context. Just as in life. It is then important to identify why communicating science this way did (or did not) bring the desired results to keep improving.

So, if there is only one advice to give in the end, here it is: the more you communicate about your research, the better you will become at communicating your research.