Communicating my research effectively to different audiences is crucial for my research. Especially since my work investigating data production and interpretation during the 1896 bubonic plague outbreak is an interdisciplinary inquiry, I must consider the language and perspectives of people from many different fields (history and philosophy of science/science studies, global health, data science). Additionally, I am to be critical of “evidence-based” approaches by calling into question what is considered evidence. I especially want to implore those interacting with my research to consider the politics of global health data-based research.

Strategies I plan to employ to communicate the importance of my research are based on conveying complex ideas in short, digestible points. First, instead of providing a full literature review to my audience, a better strategy would be to communicate details that are specific to the points I’m trying to make. For example, instead of explaining the history of bacteriology and lab science during the 1896 outbreak as a new and contested form of science, I can explain details relevant to my argument like how the moral paradigms of imperialism and the tropics inherent to lab science.

Another strategy would be to provide concrete examples in the primary sources to better illustrate my arguments verbally. This would move away from speaking in the abstract, where people unfamiliar with the topic may have trouble understanding what I’m saying. By highlighting the details of a specific primary source and how it connects to my argument, I can better explain my point. I think that bringing out exceptional cases to explain my arguments would be particularly useful in this strategy. Specifically, the examples I provide should not be embroiled in administrative details that may bog down my presentation, but instead easy-to-explain examples with modern analogies that would be digestible for my audience.

Catering to the expertise of my audience would also help capture their attention better. Understanding someone’s background in public health, informatics, history, or anthropology, I can change the language I am using to better cater to their expertise. This not only adds clarity to my points but also puts my work in direct conversation with the expertise of my audience.

Based on my current professional goals, I would like my work to speak most directly to those in the field of science studies or critical global health. I intend to pursue a career in this field. Another group I would like to speak to is global health. I would like my research to convey the importance of considering political dimensions when answering questions about global health. I also would like those I’m speaking with to consider data collection as a production practice and not necessarily a simple, apolitical, and value-neutral act of observation.