Light bulb Moment 💡 Style Guide

[Ismael-KG]

Title

Template for Structuring Stories

Elevator Pitch

How are stories made coherent with one another? How can they best prompt moral reflection? There should be a standard structure for stories to follow, and this means (i) researching approaches to story-telling, and then (ii) updating the stories template.

Justification

@blue-moon22 prompted this!

Unformed Thoughts

Also, as I have written more things, I have found myself deviating from the path of research-ethics and found myself on the lanes of history of science or history of philosophy. It is still very early days, so a (or various) standard structure for stories would allow some clarity for future developments.

[Ismael-KG]

Attempt 1 (one)

All stories must have

• A beginning, middle and end;
• An "abstract" to excite readers but also keep people from wasting their time if a text is not that relevant;
• One paragraph on basic historical context (e.g.: "the events took place as eugenics were gaining traction across the pond);
• A clear message for researchers and/or research governance folk.

Intended Audiences

The potential audience of A History of Research Ethics is formed by:

• People who want to learn more about research ethics or the history of science. For these audiences, who do not need to be experts in any particular field, make sure that titles are short and clear, that the intro line describes the importance of the story, and that the abstract (first paragraph) is clear as to what the event entailed and why it carries "ethical significance."
• Research governance folk, such as legal teams, policy makers, and even human resources departments. This audience requires that the timeline not ignore the important role of legal frameworks and legal literature in shaping modern research ethics. This audience also requires that the very diverse parties who influence the implementation of research governance -- more or less wittingly -- have their voices heard. "Technical accuracy" in describing scientific findings, for this audience, can be seen as less important than actionable guidance.
• Researchers, by which I mean the infinite range between master's students in theology and tenured professors in astrophysics.

Abstracts

Must include at least one sentence on:

• Sociohistorical context;
• The event the story will study; and
• The key ethical question that the story raises.

Communication style

• Prioritise simple terminology and explain any technical jargon immediately. By technical jargon, I mean terms used by a particular professions and which are hard for others to understand. (See what I did there?)
• Don't be afraid of trying to be funny. A History of Research Ethics is not a dull academic journal that almost purposefully alienates anybody who isn't in the academics' club already. Humour breaks down barriers between writers and readers.
• On breaking down barriers, take readers on a journey with you. Learn together and speak in terms of "we." For example: "In this story, we will visit the complexity of conducting research in environments where we don't share the training that our colleagues have" (roughly).
• The language employed can be informal. Feel free to use contractions, for example, and see Nordqist (2020) for more on informal language. But informality must not detract from clarity, or undermine the severity of stories or certain parts of stories. More formal tones can be employed when discussing more technical aspects of stories, either the ethical frameworks that they hint at, or any field-specific knowledge that might need spelling out.

[Ismael-KG]

Structures

See Wikipedia on Dramatic Structures. I do want this to be an enveloping experience, so to speak... The basic structure for all stories to follow:

1. The historical scene must be set to absorb the reader into this different world, whether it be a year or a thousand years earlier. Sociohistorical context means answering to where, when and why the event took place.
2. The event itself must respond to what and how. What requires a description of the particular event. How means engaging with the continuous nature of, well, time.
3. The scene is set for an Ethical Quandary™️. It is here where different dramatic structures might be employed. Is it all smooth-sailing until panic! A nefarious application of some technology! Or, perhaps the quandary section begins with sorrow and woe — unforgettable pain or untenable obstacles — and we gradually come to see the light. The point is that we can draw on some degree of theatricality. This is both (i) so that the narrative is captivating and (ii) that the very palpable distresses that complex ethical questions can come to cause are made as salient as possible. (Think Hacking's 1996 "sensationalism.)
4. The conclusion must outline either (i) key ethical concepts gained from (3) above, (ii) questions for researchers to reflect on in their work, and/or (iii) thoughts for research governance folk to draw on when designing or reviewing policies. Ideally, the conclusion is not a summary of (1), (2) and (3), as we might find in an academic philosophy paper.

[Ismael-KG]

Attempt 2 (two)

All stories must have

• A short title
• An introductory line with less than 240 characters.
• A summary paragraph at the start (an "abstract") to excite readers but also keep people from wasting their time if a text is not that relevant;
• At least one paragraph on basic historical context (e.g.: "the events took place as eugenics were gaining traction across the pond...");
• A clear message for researchers and/or research governance folk (e.g.: "we here see the importance of including perspectives from groups who have been historically marginalised from academia").

Titles

Story titles must be under 70 characters and conform to one of the following styles (or result in an issue to expand this list if they do not meet these guidelines):

• Simple name of the institution or technology being discussed (e.g. A Bablylonian Library and The Lunisolar Calendar).
• The name of texts without clear authors (e.g. Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus, Ebers Papyrus).
• Books and papers with clear authors will be called "[book title], by [author's full name, or surnames if two authors, or "first author surname et al." if more than two authors]" (e.g. Hind Swaraj, by Mahatma Gandhi, The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, by Russell and Burch).
• Titles of the coined terms theme (#3) will be called "[author's full name, or surnames if two authors, or "first author surname et al." if more than two authors] coin(s) ["coined term"]" (e.g. Émile Durkheim coins "collective consciousness", Molyneux et al. coin "neglected tropical diseases"
• Titles in the "Legislation [...]" category (#11) will be the name of the text being analysed (e.g.: Code of Hamurabi, The Belmont Report).
• Stories in the research tragedies category (#13) will be titled by "[common plot], Part [Roman numbers, I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII...]" (e.g. Heliocentrism, Part I).

Introductory lines

These are very short, are to be kept under 240 characters, and should:

• Introduce the main event, and/or
• Introduce the concept that is relevant to ethics.

A case with both points is found in Princess Dashkova's story:

Princess Dashkova Yekaterina Romanovna Vorontsova is appointed to direct the Petersburg Academy of Arts and Sciences, establishes the Russian Academy, and helps reflect on gender stereotypes and allyship.

But both points needn't be present, as 240 characters is a tight limit. The event is, for example, the only element present in the case of Comptes Rendus:

Following some, perhaps unpleasant, exchanges with journalists, "Comptes Rendus" becomes the French Académie's academic journal.

A story's intro that emphasises only the second point can be found in the Humboldt University story:

"Academic freedom" gains form in Humboldt’s University of Berlin, in Germany.

Abstracts

Must include at least one sentence on:

• Sociohistorical context;
• The event the story will study; and
• The key ethical question that the story raises.

Historical Context and clear message

This is really the body of the story, and the following "structures" subsection provides some guidance.

Structures

The basic structure for all stories to follow:

1. The historical scene must be set to absorb the reader into this different world, whether it be a year or a thousand years earlier. Sociohistorical context means answering to where, when and why the event took place.
2. The event itself must respond to what and how. What requires a description of the particular event. How means engaging with the continuous nature of, well, time.
3. The scene is set for an Ethical Quandary™️. It is here where different dramatic structures might be employed. Is it all smooth-sailing until panic! A nefarious application of some technology! Or, perhaps the quandary section begins with sorrow and woe — unforgettable pain or untenable obstacles — and we gradually come to see the light. The point is that we can draw on some degree of theatricality. This is both (i) so that the narrative is captivating and (ii) that the very palpable distresses that complex ethical questions can come to cause are made as salient as possible. (Think Hacking's 1996 "sensationalism.)
4. The conclusion must outline either (i) key ethical concepts gained from (3) above, (ii) questions for researchers to reflect on in their work, and/or (iii) thoughts for research governance folk to draw on when designing or reviewing policies. Ideally, the conclusion is not a summary of (1), (2) and (3), as we might find in an academic philosophy paper.

Intended Audiences

The potential audience of A History of Research Ethics is formed by:

• People who want to learn more about research ethics or the history of science. For these audiences, who do not need to be experts in any particular field, make sure that titles are short and clear, that the intro line describes the importance of the story, and that the abstract (first paragraph) is clear as to what the event entailed and why it carries "ethical significance."
• Research governance folk, such as legal teams, policy makers, and even human resources departments. This audience requires that the timeline not ignore the important role of legal frameworks and legal literature in shaping modern research ethics. This audience also requires that the very diverse parties who influence the implementation of research governance -- more or less wittingly -- have their voices heard. "Technical accuracy" in describing scientific findings, for this audience, can be seen as less important than actionable guidance.
• Researchers, by which I mean the infinite range between master's students in theology and tenured professors in astrophysics.

Communication style

Given the diverse audiences The Timeline seeks to adapt to, the below guidelines emphasise the need to break down barriers.

• Prioritise simple terminology and explain any technical jargon immediately. By technical jargon, I mean terms used by a particular professions and which are hard for others to understand. (See what I did there?)
• Don't be afraid of trying to be funny. A History of Research Ethics is not a dull academic journal that almost purposefully alienates anybody who isn't in the academics' club already. Humour breaks down barriers between writers and readers.
• On breaking down barriers, take readers on a journey with you. Learn together and speak in terms of "we." For example: "In this story, we will visit the complexity of conducting research in environments where we don't share the training that our colleagues have" (roughly).
• The language employed can be informal. Feel free to use contractions, for example, and see Nordqist (2020) for more on informal language. But informality must not detract from clarity, or undermine the severity of stories or certain parts of stories. More formal tones can be employed when discussing more technical aspects of stories, either the ethical frameworks that they hint at, or any field-specific knowledge that might need spelling out.

[Ismael-KG]

Protocol 4 has been created.

[Ismael-KG]

Booo, I forgot to mention @BrainonSilicon helped figure out what I needed here...