By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm:
When you think of science, do you think of dry research articles, and charts and graphs that take a good deal of explanation in order to get to a point? Or do you think of Neil DeGrasse Tyson explaining the Cosmos with the help of clear but sophisticated video and graphics? If it is your goal to connect with an audience of non-scientists, like a jury for example, then your choice ought to be for something closer to the latter. A science-educator like Tyson who uses all the tools available is in a better position to make the material not just informative, but engaging and emotional as well.
In a past post, I shared the example of a four-minute video from Tyson, on the science of public understanding of science, specifically. That video nicely illustrates the thesis of a group of researchers from Griffith University in Queensland, Australia (Czaran, Wolski & Richardson, 2017). Their paper, like this post, probably should have been a video, because it makes the case that researchers should stretch themselves to step outside the typical forms and outlets of the academy and should tell the story of their research, and use modern media to do so. That advice to distill the research outcome to "short, relatable, digestible, and engaging visual products," applies expert witnesses as well. This post shares a few of their conclusions, based on their twelve-month review of new service designed to encourage researchers to use audio-visual media to tell their research story, as they apply to the testifying expert.