Rethinking the Ph.D. dissertation in botany: Widening the circle.

Abstract

Public perceptions of science and scientists are generally positive in the United States (Pew Research Center, 2015; Funk et al., 2020), and one theme that resonates particularly strongly is the importance of conveying scientific findings; 80% of those surveyed ranked this point highly (American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2018). At the same time, scientific literacy among students in the United States is lower than that of many other industrial countries (Desilver, 2017). Although we as scientists do very well in communicating and discussing our results with each other, we frequently find it difficult to communicate with the public; we need to learn to use appropriate language(s) and media to connect with diverse audiences. We are at a crucial juncture when it is more important than ever for scientists to engage the public and create a deeper understanding of the ways basic and applied science and fundamental biological processes connect to our lives. One might argue that the future of our species and our planet hinges on more meaningful public engagement regarding science. But how best to engage the public in a deeper understanding of science and scientific research? In politics, candidates are said to campaign in poetry, but govern in prose. Applying this analogy to science, the complex process of scientific research is much like writing in prose, but scientific communication with the public requires the elegance and beauty of verse. Yet, scientists are generally ill-prepared for this task. Scientific mentoring typically involves rigorous training in conducting high-level research (as it should), but we typically dedicate far less attention to preparing students to communicate science to the public, despite increasing opportunities through universities, professional societies, and nonprofit organizations for training in effective science communication. Furthermore, the content of the standard Ph.D. dissertation reflects a long-standing commitment to research training, but entirely lacks a formalized component for public engagement. Given the current need for both excellent science and effective science communication, how should this disconnect of the modern dissertation be resolved? Here we focus on the typical components of a Ph.D. dissertation in botany in the United States, trace its history and how we got to where we are today, and suggest an alternative approach to standard graduate training and dissertation content. This article was stimulated by discussions about the goals and challenges of writing a dissertation in a rapidly changing social environment. Our goal is to open a community discussion. While each of us comes from a different personal and scientific background, we are approaching this subject from the shared specific viewpoint of a single institution in the United States. Despite this admitted bias, we hope that the points we raise can be customized to different settings in the United States and globally. We show that the basic style and format of the standard dissertation in botany has not changed in well over 100 years, in part due to how strongly it has been institutionalized as a core element of scientific training. We argue that although this traditional product reflects rigorous training in science, it does not encourage communication with a broader audience; yet the need to develop and/or enhance skills needed to communicate science broadly and effectively are more pressing now than ever before. While we value the role of science communicators, we also understand that better partnerships with these professionals could be established if scientists improved their own communication skills. Therefore, we propose a critical rethinking of the botany dissertation—its goals, content, structure, and audience—and then suggest ways to refresh the dissertation and help move us forward. We hope to begin an active conversation in the botanical community, and indeed in other STEM fields, about graduate training. Some historical reckoning is needed to help us understand the origins of the modern dissertation, its historic purpose, and scope, much of which we take for granted now. The dissertation, or thesis, dates back to the conferral of formal academic degrees associated with medieval universities in European contexts (Breimer et al., 2005). Although it has varied, taking the form of a disputation or disputatio, excercitatio, or thesis, the dissertation, as formal academic treatise, remains an integral part of academic training. It can fulfill the requirements of a master's degree, a doctoral degree, or an undergraduate degree, though most commonly the dissertation itself is associated with the doctoral degree with the purpose of demonstrating an independence of thought resulting in original research and scholarship. Surprisingly little has changed in its purpose since its advent in the Middle Ages, though the fields and degrees themselves have changed over time, placing different demands on candidates. Indeed, many of these fields would be unrecognizable to us today, especially in scientific circles. Botany, for example, was closely associated with both natural history and medicine, especially delving into materia medica, or the study of plants associated with therapeutic practice (Morton, 1982). It began to flourish as a science during the period of the scientific revolution (1543–1687), which saw the emergence of modern science as we know it today. During the period of colonial expansion in the 17th and 18th centuries, botany received special attention, specifically in the areas of classification, curation, and cultivation of plants collected overseas. Consequently, many museums, botanical gardens, and herbaria were founded to store and maintain these plants and expand botanical practice (Brockway, 1979). By far, however, the most significant development in the training of botanical scientists accompanied the emergence of the modern research university in the late 18th and early 19th centuries following in the wake of industrialization to meet the needs of post-industrial societies (Perkin, 2007). Favoring the model of blended teaching and research in a manner familiar to us today, these modern research universities emerged in Scotland but were especially well developed in German-language contexts. Coinciding with novel developments in microscopic techniques, sectioning, staining, and dyeing (associated especially with the growth of German chemical industries) and with an emphasis on experimental and laboratory-based methods, these research universities fueled the growth of the “new botany,” as it came to be known, that blended traditional botany with the newer laboratory-based and experimental anatomy, morphology, physiology, and cytology (Overfield, 1993). Botanists led the way in the 19th century; they pioneered the understanding of cytology and contributed to the establishment of cell theory, microbiology, and plant pathology (Morton, 1982). As a result of these developments, botanical sciences boomed in German universities, which became the great centers of learning, instruction, and original research through the 19th century and well into the Second World War (Smocovitis, 2014). The influence of the German educational system and in particular the training of doctoral candidates on the development of the botanical sciences must be underscored. Universities in the United States did not have comparable educational infrastructure in place until late in the 19th century and indeed well into the 20th century (Veysey, 1965; Oleson and Voss, 1979). It was thus commonplace for botanists to obtain advanced graduate training and doctoral research in Germany, training with the great masters there, and then returning to the United States to secure positions in not just elite schools and universities, but also in the growing field of agricultural research that included land grant universities, agricultural research institutes, and botanical gardens and government institutions such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture (see Smocovitis, 2014, for more on doctoral training in German institutions and the transition to U.S. institutions). The historian of the botanical sciences Andrew Denny Rodgers (1944) insightfully noted that the years 1873–1892 were indeed “decades of transition,” that saw the growth of the botanical sciences in these varied institutional contexts in the United States and that placed demands on botanists as professionals in contrast to self-taught “amateurs,” now formally trained in areas of research and teaching. Indeed, it was in this context that the Botanical Society of America emerged, sponsoring both research and the education of professional botanists in the United States (Smocovitis, 2006). The demand for professional botanists eventually led to the establishment of formal degree programs in the United States associated with major botany departments in university contexts, but the requirements for the dissertation continued to draw on established European traditions, and especially on German institutions. Structurally, dissertations in the United States were thus formal, academic treatises meant to demonstrate the craft skills of the professional scientist with several chapters, i.e., introductory and concluding sections that demonstrated skill in referencing and citing relevant literature, the formulation of problems, the selection of methods, the display of research data and observations, and the kind of analytical discussion familiar to practicing scientists today. Even in appearance, dissertations in the U.S. today appear similar to those of a century ago, with similarities in typescript, spacing, and referencing, and the general writing style and tone adopted. Hand-drawn illustrations were eventually replaced by photography, and typescript (often with errors) was eventually replaced by automated word processors; personal computers with software programs enabled the insertion of graphic representations that transformed the presentation of data and opened the doors to new and more creative interpretive opportunities. Despite technological innovations, the modern-day dissertation bears a stunning resemblance to dissertations written over 100 years ago, and indeed even longer ago than that. The rise of the professional botanist in the late 19th century yielded great advances in scientific methods and discoveries, with numerous benefits to humankind. But that rise also had unintended consequences, including a separation of professional and amateur botanists, exclusivity, a close association with colonialism that was often antagonistic to local indigenous knowledge (Smith, 1999), all well beyond the scope of this overview. Here we will focus on just one consequence of the modern Ph.D. dissertation: how it has limited our ability to communicate with the public(s). The importance of scientists making their discoveries readily accessible and understood by the public is not new; it has long been recognized by research agencies and others. For example, these so-called “broader impacts” were considered by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) from at least the 1960s, finally becoming a distinct review criterion in 1997 when the National Science Board simplified the criteria for review of NSF proposals. NSF requires grant proposals to include a “Broader Impacts” section, the goals of which include fostering increased public engagement (https://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/special/broaderimpacts/; https://beta.nsf.gov/science-matters/nsf-101-five-tips-your-broader-impacts-statement). However, we are at a crucial juncture when it is more important than ever for scientists to engage with the public. As one example, we face a major biodiversity crisis with the rapid extinction of species, the loss of cultural diversity, the consequences of climate change—all changes that require solutions where scientists, the public, and policymakers must collaborate. At the same time, science literacy has declined (e.g., Kennedy and Hefferon, 2019), with confusion and distrust of science among some segments of the population (https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/why-do-so-many-americans-distrust-science; Kennedy et al., 2022). Despite the recognized importance of public outreach, the ability of scientists to convey important discoveries has become increasingly challenging, especially given the complexity of science and the staggering pace of discovery. How can we enhance the training of our Ph.D. students to build the skills needed to convey their work to the public? We suggest a paradigm shift: It is time to alter the rigid structure and contents of the dissertation, the general framework of which has been in place for well over a century, and encourage students to take a broader view of scholarship and include a creative approach to public engagement. Publication or other relevant and appropriate method of dissemination about the public engagement activity—whether an art exhibition, a dance performance, or after-school program for elementary students, for example—would be expected and a report on the activity would be included in the dissertation, along with the standard research chapters. Such chapters may have impact in diverse, sometimes unexpected ways, beyond simple citation or engagement metrics. We include here a variety of creative opportunities and materials, including art installations, videos, and YouTube. A greater challenge beyond the scope of this commentary is providing appropriate credit to the author for these varied products in a manner that can be a meaningful part of a curriculum vitae. This change may also require committee members to re-evaluate their own criteria for what it means to produce a successful dissertation and for students to include experts from non-science fields on their dissertation committees. We acknowledge that we are advocating what could be a significant paradigm shift, and scientists will interpret this work from very different viewpoints depending on their own backgrounds. There is no single way to engage public audiences and meaningfully convey scientific discoveries, and students should be encouraged to tap into their own individual abilities, talents, or interests and to tailor their effort to their intended audience. One effective means of conveying research, for example, is via the arts, in a broad sense (here including painting, drawing, photography, projection, animation, writing, dance, recognizing that different media may work better than others in different contexts) (Rabalais, 2014). It has been said that science touches the mind while art touches the soul; combining art and science can be a powerful means of reaching the public. Art is not only a wonderful way to convey science, but it can also enable scientists themselves to view their own work from the prism of a new lens (Bohm, 2004). Below we highlight examples that current students (coauthors here) have used to convey research via various art forms. These highlights are not comprehensive; we provide these examples to encourage discussion and promote artistic license (others will be included in upcoming issues of the Plant ScienceBulletin in 2023 and 2024 [https://cms.botany.org/home/publications/plan-tsciencc-ebulletin.html]). We hope to demonstrate that there is a full spectrum for how these chapters could take shape, from applied outreach such as K-12 lesson plans to art projects or installations. The first uses the tools of art to communicate scientific concepts, the second is rooted in expression. Outreach, education, and art all have intrinsic value, and all may borrow from each other, but the intention behind them is not necessarily the same. Students with artistic ability could create a set of pieces, illustrations, or a comic that communicates their science. For instance, this approach could involve creating scientific posters, talks, and teaching material. One of the coauthors uses illustration and comics to convey theory and findings of experiments (e.g., Pham et al., 2021). For these projects and for a potential dissertation chapter with the same format, the usual structure for presenting scientific work can be retained: Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion sections. However, even within this rigid framework, a comic format (Figure 1) can facilitate better communication with the public, STEM students, and other STEM professionals through its different strengths. The visual style and infusion of the student's personality and preferences into the presentation shift the perception of the work to something more playful than formal and something that can be engaged with on different levels, from enjoyment of the visuals to deep involvement with the data. It creates an opening to engage visual learners and students who might otherwise be intimidated by the way formal scientific work is presented. In addition, comics are usually used to tell a story. By using this format, the researcher is forced to reframe the work as a narrative. The comic format streamlines the presentation of the work, requiring that the author reevaluate which details to include, what points to emphasize, and how each element is connected to the whole. It also often forces one to place the scientist within the narrative as a central character who struggles and does not always know the right answer. It acknowledges the scientist as a fallible human being with thoughts, feelings, weaknesses, and love for the work, all points that are especially meaningful to convey to students who are beginning to find their place within STEM. The science-as-narrative approach also highlights that scientific work is a process with ups and downs, and with a final answer that is often still uncertain, rather than a straight line from a hypothesis to an answer (which is often the way that the scientific method is framed in K-12 public education in the United States). The illustration/comic format is also highly useful for conveying nebulous concepts alongside the “real”. Portraying methods in visual format promotes the use of metaphor and analogy when explaining how a complicated analysis or theory works, flowing and intermingling with depictions of the taxa and with the scientist and collaborators doing the work (Figure 1). While we have described the strengths of adopting this artistic format for presenting scientific work in a more analytical way here, its biggest strength lies in the less quantifiable enjoyment and connection it can foster. It is fulfilling to be able to talk about science in a way that harnesses what the researcher enjoys outside scientific work and to convey this feeling of excitement to the audience. A video can be a powerful and effective means of sharing results with a general audience in a way that is exciting to watch and easy to understand. Technological improvements in video, video editing and integration with social media platforms such as TikTok and Instagram have made it possible to develop products of good quality with minimal training (https://www.enago.com/academy/exploring-video-journals-an-interview-with-latest-thinking/; https://lternet.edu/communication-resources/videos/). The use of video to communicate is highly accessible now to young scientists who have grown up with the technology, and video is being used increasingly for outreach, education, and research. Already, some journals (Smith, 2018; https://lternet.edu/communication-resources/videos/) are encouraging the submission of videos or video abstracts for processes, methods, and messaging, made possible by the transition of paper journals to digital content. We suggest that this might be a first step, heralding the incorporation of multimedia interpretations and visualizations of data, results, and conclusions. Science communicators and students are also translating research into short videos that can be viewed on social media by the public, with a burgeoning literature on this topic and “how-to” videos (e.g., Brossard and Scheufele, 2013; Smith, 2018; Velho et al., 2020; https://lternet.edu/communication-resources/videos/; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYwg2lsrCY0). Additionally, improved technology has also facilitated animation. Animation by one coauthor shows the development of a nasturtium flower from a domed handful of cells into a fully open flower. To explain the animation with words would be cumbersome. Additionally, the animation seamlessly integrates thousands of different images from many different flowers from separate computed tomography (CT) scans, representing floral features at different scales (https://bit.ly/3ZGXgtM). These individual source images can be viewed separately (available in data repositories), but the animation contributes a unique value that transcends the different views of morphogenesis. Some students might be inspired by the many Ph.D. students who participate in the yearly Dance Your Ph.D. competition (https://www.science.org/content/page/announcing-annual-dance-your-ph-d-contest), sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Science magazine, and Primer.ai. This competition offers a platform for graduate students to communicate their research using moves and sounds rather than the more typical lectures backed by data-loaded presentations. As with other media, the effective use of dance requires consideration of the message and the audience. Different topics and their expression might be selected for audiences such as an introductory biology class versus an auditorium of experts at a national or international conference. Merging art and science through illustrations and video are not the only means of conveying research discoveries. Other creative skills can also be harnessed, and students might be encouraged to explore other avenues, such as creative writing. The creativity of the student can be used to translate research into a fictional narrative, a poem, or even a short humor piece. One coauthor wove traditional ecological knowledge, biocultural conservation, and plant taxonomy into a fictional story about the sempre vivas (Figure 2), threatened plants found in the campos rupestres in Brazil that are harvested for use in dried floral arrangements (Figure 2). The idea of writing a book for children developed during a course, Indigenous Knowledge, Environmental Justice and Development in Latin America, offered by Dr. Joel Correia (University of Florida). One of the final class assignments challenged students to communicate their research in creative ways with the broader community. What started as an assignment transformed into a dissertation chapter, involving multiple collaborators across different countries and disciplines. The book, coauthored by Nanci Ribeiro de Jesus, an expert on local knowledge of the sempre vivas (and a master's student at the time), focuses on the threatened areas where these plants occur and the communities that harvest them. The team included two illustrators, a Spanish translator, and three professors who have supported the project in many different ways. The book highlights conservation while preserving local use of the land and fits well with the overarching dissertation research of the student, who is studying biocultural diversity in the threatened campos rupestres. The team is also developing educational activities in partnership with the Education and Public Programs department at the Florida Museum of Natural History. Preparing these additional resources strengthens the commitment to outreach because it increases the chances of connecting with the broader public. These materials, coupled with collaborating with professionals who have expertise in working at the intersection of science and community, enhance the quality and significance of the work. For a mentor, there are many ways to support students interested in adding an artistic dimension to research. Encouraging one's mentees to include faculty from art or education departments (and others as well) on their committees can facilitate the inherently interdisciplinary process of communicating science with the public. Adding assignments in courses that enable students to explore artistic and creative skills can offer opportunities to dedicate time and effort to these activities. Including students in brainstorming discussions about broader impacts for grant proposals also facilitates exploration of creative skills. Inviting speakers to departmental seminars who address outreach in their talks can illustrate how researchers successfully integrate outreach in their labs. Finally, demonstrating as much enthusiasm and facilitating connections for outreach chapters/dissertation components as for research chapters further supports students and their work. Beyond encouraging the inclusion of an art/science chapter in a Ph.D. dissertation, broader changes in graduate training could further encourage creativity and communication, including interdisciplinary curricula, workshops, and funding for cross-disciplinary or creative projects and updated compilations of resources, such as lists of books and artists. Although alternative chapters are not “traditional” research, they may nonetheless represent research; furthermore, the expectation would be that such chapters would be rigorously produced and impactful. In some cases, it may be appropriate to evaluate the impact of an outreach event or product on the public. Including a committee member with expertise in formal evaluation may also be valuable. For example, if the student is providing an outreach experience for the public or releasing a tool for public engagement, professional evaluation may reveal which aspects were conveyed effectively, enjoyed, or motivated action. Working with faculty and a graduate student from the College of Education, we evaluated outreach events involving the projection art installation, One Tree, One Planet (https://www.onetreeoneplanet.org/), and an animated movie (TreeTender; https://www.treetender.org/) to assess how well these products communicated key principles of phylogeny and ecological interdependence and the viewers' commitment to conservation (Valle et al., 2020). The integration of art in the botanical sciences has multiple potential societal benefits, such as enhancing interest in science and improving scientific literacy. The synthesis of art and science can pique interest in a way that cold facts typically cannot. New (or renewed) interest in science, especially in the context of botanical science, can inspire involvement in community science projects or motivate people to embrace a field in which they previously had no exposure or interest, often with new commitment for conservation and the public good. This work may also help to bridge the manufactured gap, entrenched in the history of botany, between “amateur” and professional botanists using a format that is not steeped in a history of disengagement with the former. Beyond the value to the public, there may also be intrinsic value for both botanical research and researchers themselves (to be further discussed in upcoming issues of Plant Science Bulletin). Furthermore, we suggest that an art/science component of a dissertation might help to sustain and reinvigorate those pursuing a Ph.D. by encouraging students to take the time to find what is intrinsically worthwhile about their work and develop the tools to communicate the importance to others. Research has shown that doctoral students suffer from high rates of mental illness, such as anxiety and depression (Forrester, 2021; Levecque et al., 2017; Hazell, 2022), and these rates are higher for underrepresented and/or vulnerable groups: women, LGBTQIA+, people from low socioeconomic backgrounds, indigenous people, neurodiverse people, and those from diverse races and ethnicities (Forrester, 2021). Many of these problems are likely rooted in systemic issues: graduate students are generally underpaid and work long hours, and their academic futures are precarious and unclear. Clearly, an art/science dissertation chapter will not fix these systemic issues. However, enabling a broader creative approach to science might help many young researchers reclaim a sense of intrinsic motivation behind their research. Additionally, a report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018) found emerging evidence that integration of the arts and humanities into STEM on an undergraduate level has a positive effect on learning, recruitment, and retention of women and underrepresented minority groups in STEM and anecdotal evidence of similar effects in graduate programs. The issues raised here extend beyond botany to other scientific disciplines. However, botany is unique among scientific disciplines in that we are in a sense all botanists with a strong connection to plants; it is in our DNA, so to speak. Despite its importance to the human experience in evolutionary and societal concerns, botany remains underappreciated and not sufficiently understood by the diverse publics who serve as stakeholders in the science. We argue that in part, this lack of appreciation and understanding is because botanists have not paid sufficient attention to communication strategies and outreach as part of the formal doctoral training, and that the dissertation itself needs a refresh because it falls short of accommodating the needs of both scientists and society. The foundation of the “modern” Ph.D. dissertation is well over 100 years old, and despite the many benefits of rigorous scientific training, the tradition of the dissertation needs rethinking, for many reasons. We advocate a return of botany to its roots, connecting professional botanists with the public(s) via stronger, more effective communication—and this effort should be one component of a refreshed and revamped Ph.D. dissertation. We suspect that changes that benefit botany in the United States may be equally good for other areas of STEM and in regions and cultures outside the United States. We invite all invested in this topic, especially those outside of our own expertise and experience, to continue this dialogue and re-evaluate the ways we train the next generation of scientists.