One of my major peeves about science reporting in mainstream media (and yes, I’m including blogs linking youtube videos under that) is that many media do a horrible job of actually reporting their sources. Often you see a newspaper stating “Scientists in discover …”, where is a state/country/whatever with numerous universities, and neither the scientist, nor the university is named. Which is a shame. Science is done by hard working people, and they deserve to get named. (And actually naming the scientists (or ideally linking the research paper) helps with looking up more useful info about the subject…)
Yes, many scientists work because they love science, and not because they love publicity but they *should* get credit.
So I must say I’m a bit put off by the “Woman Scientist on Youtube” in the title of this post, instead of “Dr. Becky from Oxford University” (as she described herself on her Youtube channel) or more formally “Dr. Rebecca Smethurst” (https://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/contacts/people/smethurst)
Pet peeves set aside, yes the video is nice. My (brief) astrophysics days were 20 years ago, and she clearly answers some of the questions that were a bit more unclear back in those times.
robert79says
that should be “Scientists in x discover …, where x is”
@robert79, I started this series because I have realized that I unconsciously mostly follow and promote male artisans, artists, and scientists on YouTube. That is why I started to name the posts in this series “Women (generic vocation) on YouTube -- (specific vocation). The point of these posts is not a particular topic or discovery in the video, but to point out women on YouTube for those who are interested in those vocations and encourage people to go to YouTube and explore their videos and channels more. Which you did, so I call that mission accomplished.
Nobody objected to that naming convention yet, but if it is inappropriate or problematic, I am eager to learn and open to suggestions.
Jazzletsays
Charly I think the naming is exactly what it needs to be. You could address robert79’s point by naming the the individual (generic vocation) in your introduction.
One of my major peeves about science reporting in mainstream media (and yes, I’m including blogs linking youtube videos under that) is that many media do a horrible job of actually reporting their sources. Often you see a newspaper stating “Scientists in discover …”, where is a state/country/whatever with numerous universities, and neither the scientist, nor the university is named. Which is a shame. Science is done by hard working people, and they deserve to get named. (And actually naming the scientists (or ideally linking the research paper) helps with looking up more useful info about the subject…)
Yes, many scientists work because they love science, and not because they love publicity but they *should* get credit.
So I must say I’m a bit put off by the “Woman Scientist on Youtube” in the title of this post, instead of “Dr. Becky from Oxford University” (as she described herself on her Youtube channel) or more formally “Dr. Rebecca Smethurst” (https://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/contacts/people/smethurst)
Pet peeves set aside, yes the video is nice. My (brief) astrophysics days were 20 years ago, and she clearly answers some of the questions that were a bit more unclear back in those times.
that should be “Scientists in x discover …, where x is”
@robert79, I started this series because I have realized that I unconsciously mostly follow and promote male artisans, artists, and scientists on YouTube. That is why I started to name the posts in this series “Women (generic vocation) on YouTube -- (specific vocation). The point of these posts is not a particular topic or discovery in the video, but to point out women on YouTube for those who are interested in those vocations and encourage people to go to YouTube and explore their videos and channels more. Which you did, so I call that mission accomplished.
Nobody objected to that naming convention yet, but if it is inappropriate or problematic, I am eager to learn and open to suggestions.
Charly I think the naming is exactly what it needs to be. You could address robert79’s point by naming the the individual (generic vocation) in your introduction.