|
By: Amy Nippert @nippert_r Edited by: Christina M. Swords (Marvin)  As a freelancer in a pandemic, calling sources is a crucial part of my career. As a millennial who grew up in an age of instant messaging, calling sources is also a stressful part of my writing. I don’t hate talking on the phone, but the less well I know the person on the other end, the more intrusive and awkward it feels. Part of me wishes I could just text my sources. But I can’t, and phone calls provide an organic conversation in a way that texting or emails do not. Resigned in the knowledge that calling sources is going to be the normal process for a while, I’ve been thinking about why I find it so stressful and how to ameliorate some of those feelings.
One of my primary sources of anxiety is a sense of imposter syndrome. I’m not a professional reporter; instead, I’m a graduate student trying to break into more science writing. As such, I don’t have the authority and credibility of newspaper credentials. Still, the best way to learn is by doing, and it’s ok to tell your sources that you’re a freelance writer. If you’ve gotten a pitch accepted, say the publication. If you’re getting background to prepare a pitch, be transparent and mention possible publication options but still go for it. Sometimes there isn’t a story after talking to people; it’s important to know that prior to pitching.
0 Comments
Edited by Christina M. Marvin
 Siri Carpenter, science writer and editor-in-chief for The Open Notebook. Photo courtesy of Siri Carpenter.
Earlier this year, the Science Talk team hosted a live chat with science journalist and editor Siri Carpenter. Members of the Science Talk community submitted burning questions on science writing and editing to Siri in real time — keep reading to see what we learned! This week's focus is on science writing. Be sure to tune in next week when we continue our conversation with science editing.
Siri is a scientist and science writer who is now the editor-in-chief for The Open Notebook, an amazing and comprehensive resource for science writers. She recently published a new resource for science writers, The Craft of Science Writing.
What was the impetus to make this book [The Craft of Science Writing] happen? What drove you to put all this information together? Over the years, The Open Notebook (TON) has published around 400 articles about the craft of science writing. One reason [the idea of a book] appealed to me was that I knew that there were themes we could draw out, ways that articles we’d published at disparate points in time would connect with one another. And I knew that realistically, no one is going to go ahead and open up 400 tabs on their browser and just happen to discover those things! I wanted to be able to do that work for people and give people something they could hold in their hands and digest in one piece — or that they could skip around and read pieces of as the spirit moved them. But we didn’t have the resources to do it. Then, the Burroughs Wellcome Fund, which since 2013 has supported our early-career fellowship program, offered us a grant to financially support development of a book — so then it was a no-brainer to do it!  The Craft of Science Writing, a new resource for science writers. Photo courtesy of Siri Carpenter.
How did you get into science writing, Siri?
I was working on my PhD in psychology when I realized, one day, that "science writing" was a thing that existed. I actually had nosed around this idea earlier, as an undergrad, even going so far as to ask professors in my psychology department, and in the English department, at the University of Wisconsin, where I was an undergrad, whether there was a way to be a writer who wrote about science. But they were all like: "No, that's not a thing." Somehow it never once occurred to me that the thing I was talking about — thinking and writing about science but not actually doing the science — was JOURNALISM. So I never went and asked journalism professors. I went to grad school for psychology, and about 2.5 years into my PhD program, I was reading the NYT science section one Tuesday, when I just kind of had this realization that these people whose articles I was reading ... this appeared to be their JOB. Science writing was (maybe?) a job.
I went to grad school for psychology, and about 2.5 years into my PhD program, I was reading the NYT science section one Tuesday, when I just kind of had this realization that these people whose articles I was reading ... this appeared to be their JOB. Science writing was (maybe?) a job.
I just kind of knew, instantly, that I wanted that job. But of course I had no idea how to prepare for or get such a job. But on the National Association of Science Writers website, if you can believe it, they had a list of "science writers who have email." I emailed everyone on that list, with what were probably the vaguest questions ever, about what a science writer does and how you become one. One person wrote me back — Charles Seife, who at the time was a pretty new science writer, and who now is a journalist and professor at NYU. Charles very kindly explained it all to me, and he told me about the AAAS Mass Media Fellowship program. (This program is an EXCELLENT way to get started in science writing.) 
The AAAS Mass Media Fellowship Program is an excellent opportunity to build skills in science journalism. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:American_Association_for_the_Advancement_of_Science_logo.svg
By that point, I knew in my bones that I wanted to somehow become a science writer, but then I had to figure out what to tell my advisor. Finally I went to her office, shut the door for what I thought would be a tense and possibly tearful discussion, and just kind of barfed out everything I wanted to say. Her response was, "Oh! If that's what you want to do, I will support you to do that." WHEW!!! (My advisor was the psychologist Mahzarin Banaji, and she is still a very close friend.) I was very lucky to get that AAAS fellowship, so I spent a summer working as a reporter at the Richmond Times-Dispatch in Virginia; and then the next summer at Science News. These internships were the only training I got as a science writer before my first real job (which was at the APA Monitor, a magazine for members of the American Psychological Association), so I was extremely lucky to have great mentors. But I still had sooooo much to learn. I would love to hear your advice on what I can do at this stage of my life to further explore and prepare for a career in science writing. Depending on how certain you are about trying out science writing, I'd recommend considering joining the National Association of Science Writers as a student member (it's about $30/year), and attending the annual ScienceWriters meeting (in October) if you can. (Full disclosure: I'm the current president of NASW; but I'd still encourage you to join and attend that meeting even if I weren't on the board!) I’d also recommend looking into whether there are any regional science writers’ groups in your area; check out the website for the Congress of Regional Science Writers groups (SciWriCongress) for a listing. Then, you should read a lot of science writing, and you want to read a lot about science writing. In addition to the TON book and website, which of course I'm flogging like there's no tomorrow ? I'd recommend two other books: “The Science Writer's Handbook”, published in 2013, and the “Field Guide for Science Writers” (2nd edition), published in ~ 2006.  Twitter
If you're active on Twitter, I'd recommend starting to follow a bunch of science writers, and the #scicomm hashtag. You might also like to follow the Friends of TON Twitter list (https://twitter.com/i/lists/1177315816678789127), which includes people who have been contributors to TON or who have worked with us as editors, early-career fellows, mentors, etc.
I think even if you are aware that choosing the non-academic career is a good option for you, people do find a lot of roadblocks, both internal (imposter syndromes etc.) and external (sometimes staying a bit too long in academia doing postdocs, might make it more difficult to be seen as someone more than a 'failed' academic) In the intro to “The Craft of Science Writing”, I make a joke about impostor syndrome — specifically, about not even being able to spell it correctly (impostor? imposter?). There's also a long, in-depth article in the book about it, and it's one of my favorites, because this is such a pervasive feeling among science journalists. (And of course many others!) I have wrestled with impostor syndrome for ... uh ... my entire life I think. And I think it's something people should speak more openly about, because knowing how common it is can PARTLY help you brush it back. Partly. But I think what's also important is to kind of personify impostor syndrome — acknowledge its existence as a force in your mind, call it the a$$hole that it is, and then, to the extent that you possibly can, dismiss it. But also, know that it may never go away, and that doesn't mean you failed — or that the impostor syndrome a$$hole was right all along. It's just part of living. Do you have some advice for people who feel like they could become science writers for a living, but might need to develop new skills, and are rather afraid of lack of stability, therefore it is difficult to completely commit to this path, as it is full of uncertainties, especially when starting. What I mean is, how do I break into the profession? There is no single correct path, either for getting initial opportunities in science writing or for what type of role to pursue. The first steps, of course, are all about learning. There are a number of excellent science journalism or science communication masters programs out there that you may already be familiar with (e.g., at UC Santa Cruz, NYU, MIT, and elsewhere); these are excellent ways to get started, if you can make them work financially (I think some offer significant financial aid, but I'm not familiar with the details). 
Internships (which should be paid!) are hugely valuable, but they can require at least temporary relocation, which is a challenge for some; and of course even if they're paid, they don't tend to be paid very generously. At TON, we see part of our role as being to offer a free educational experience to science writers.
As for making a living at science writing ... I think if you asked 10 different science writers their thoughts on that, you'd probably get 10 different answers. I will say that over my career, my annual gross income (during years when I've been full-time, not counting when my kids were babies) has ranged from about $23K to about $75K (that was when I was in a staff editing position at Discover). Most years, I make less than $50K/year.
Most science journalists I know are in one of several situations, financially:
I suspect that in general, institutional writers and public information officers have a more steady income stream than journalists (many of whom are freelancers) do, but I don’t think that by and large it’s a path to getting rich, either. There's a lot of uncertainty in journalism, and it's a tough time. But it's also an exciting time in science journalism — there are so many cool new opportunities for telling science stories in new ways, and for finding audiences for stories.  Communication is very much like marketing, where how you say something depends entirely on who you are talking to. For example, this blog is for casual readers with various types of education and background. I prefer to write content here in a very causal and conversational tone. I'm okay starting a sentence with a conjugation and ending one with a preposition. Grammar rules be damned. That is a conscious style choice that I think works best for my targeted audience.
|
Pitch & ContributeWe are currently accepting pitches! A Science Blog
|
RSS Feed
