Gillian Dohrn
The Northwest Science Writers Association is pleased to announce the winner of the 2024 Career Development Awards.
Gillian Dohrn is a science writer and recent graduate from the University of Santa Cruz, where she earned her master’s in science communication. She studied molecular biology as an undergraduate and enjoys covering emerging topics in health and life sciences.
Read her published work at https://muckrack.com/gillian-dohrn/articles
Gillian elected to use the grant to attend this year’s ScienceWriters2024 conference in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Image of Dohrn credited to TK.
“Building Your Story’s Structure” session at ScienceWriters2024 conference. Photo credit: Ben Young Landis
From arcs to scaffolding: Building story structure for a solid narrative
Sandwiched between friends from graduate school, I peered around the conference hall as people settled into their seats and dug out notebooks and pens. We were all gathered for the National Association of Science Writers conference, but I wondered what it was that brought each person to this particular session.
As someone who is rather new to the art of science writing, I often assume the challenges I face stem from a lack of experience. I completed my master’s in science communication at UC Santa Cruz in the Spring, and sometimes feel like learning about writing has taught me how little I know. The Saturday morning session on structure appealed to me because I find the prospect of organizing my thoughts, notes and other people’s words quite daunting. Traditionally, I have started writing from a blank page. If I hit a dead end, I create a new document and begin again. As it turns out, this is not always a great strategy for producing a coherent draft.
A narrative, according to the panelists, is an argument. You decide what to include, and omit, based on what you want to say. The story, meaning its arc and characters, should carry the momentum. These elements provide a scaffolding for the science, which should be introduced in the smallest possible doses and no sooner than it is needed. Think of it like walking on hot concrete, said one panelist. The narrative should help carry readers through a science-heavy section like a pool of cool water beckons from the blacktop.
Everyone agreed that the structure of a story is not always apparent from the start. One panelist suggested highlighting science in one color and narrative in another or printing it out and cutting it into pieces that you can rearrange. The product might resemble a layer cake, where alternating elements join the narrative. Or something. My takeaway was this: structure is subjective and tricky, but most people don’t arrive at a solution alone. We need our peers, editors and readers.
Because writing is by definition a solitary act, sometimes I forget that the process is collaborative. For that reason (among others) the science journalism awards lunch on Sunday stood out as a highlight. These awards capture the key topics that define this cultural moment, and the backstory. Awardees talked about where their ideas came from and who helped shape the resulting stories. Full coverage of this event is available here. I was struck by Elizabeth Endicott’s recollection of writing her Scientific American piece “I Worked in Antarctica for Three Years. My Sexual Harasser Was Never Caught”, which took years and Lauren Caruba’s description of the Dallas Morning News story “Bleeding Out”, an investigation of deaths caused by survivable injuries.
Both showcase the power of journalism to raise awareness and drive change in unique ways. The awardees spoke on behalf of supporters, collaborators and the people impacted by their work, highlighting their reach. When something piques my interest and I feel inspired to write about it, I struggle with patience. It often feels urgent, and with deadlines and hustle culture driving the journalism industry, it often is. But some stories take time.
In a session about building trust with sources, time was a theme. Each of the panelists emphasized the importance of spending time with sources. They talked about putting time into background research and prep, staying present during interviews and taking the time to walk a source through the process, checking in after the story is published and being transparent about the timeline throughout.
After that panel, an audience member asked how we’re supposed to create this kind of time while facing deadline pressure. It’s a challenge, everyone agreed, but not one worth jeopardizing someone’s trust over. I think this lesson is especially important as we move into a period where the media will come under attack, and trust may falter. That may be out of our control, but we can try to leave those that we encounter with a positive impression.
All in all, the conference struck a balance between instructive, informative, and entertaining. There were sessions that functioned something like a workshop, such as the one on building your story’s structure, and ones where experts talked about new research or covering complicated topics, inlcuding clean tech, race-related health disparities, and natural disasters. I left with pages of notes on tips and tricks, resources, and in the margins, ideas. I’m grateful to the Northwest Science Writer’s Association for awarding me the funds to attend this conferenec and excited to see what comes next.