As a student of communication rhetoric one of the most valuable lessons I have learned concerns the case for writing plainly. When we do research, especially in scientific or jargon heavy fields, we make knowledge as a whole available to the world. Reflecting on the purpose of our work researchers must ask themselves why they are doing what they do. Typically the answer to this is that their work will in some way better humanity, make the world a better place, or aid in work that strives to do so. So why would we make this work so heavily coded in the language that took years of schooling to master just to communicate their work? If you cannot, in some fashion, explain your work to any person on the street, you must ask yourself if the manner in which you are researching is truly accomplishing your goal.
When we communicate research in an accessible manner it opens up the opportunity for interactions between disciplines. By explaining the big picture outcomes of any research project you are welcoming ideas and understanding from those who may not have though to be connected to this work at all.
For my project specifically, which is a collection of oral history narratives from people on the autism spectrum, I may first ask them how autism influences their life, or simply how they view autism. Then I would ask if they believe they regularly and consistently hear the voices of autistic folks in the media talking specifically about their rights and autonomy. Not matter their answer it will prompt a reflection; what would it mean to you if someone was not only willing to listen to your life story, but saw that it is worth preserving? I believe everybody wants to be seen in some way, wants their story to be told in some manner, and this feeling is likely completely independent of their knowledge about oral history.
Because I am interested in narrative journalism, my work would brush shoulders with just about every field. Political science, history, broadcasting technology, website development, social media analysis, are all fields that, at the base level, uphold and assist the field of journalism. One field specifically I think would be integral to interact with as a journalist would be in social media development. This field excompasses computer scientists, data analysts, social scientists, etc. Because these people have the advanced knowledge and ultimate control over how information is distributed, it can be dangerous if this work is uninvestigated and uninformed by its consequences. Information disorder is a dangerous consequence of this industry lacking interdisciplinary information. Journalists are typically well informed on information disorder and have the resource to investigate the way social media influences the physical world.
Without the willingness and ability to share academic research in an accessible manner our world will cease progression. The practice of effective communication is at the crux of true and vast knowledge.