How can you take technical knowledge and turn it into clear messages?

It's hard to communicate technical knowledge when specialized language doesn't adapt to the audience's needs and understanding.

A few days ago I was at an OEI talk on scientific dissemination and I loved the example they gave, which were the recent eclipses. This astronomical phenomenon was explained very well and on time, and people began to talk about the subject, to look for information, to ask themselves questions and even to plan trips to see it. No one had to read an article to get excited about an eclipse.

And thinking about that I realized that the problem is not only about science. It is from any field that develops its own language.

For example, in a legal contract full of clauses that the signer barely understands. In a financial report that only makes sense for those who work in finance. In a public policy written with such technicality that it is difficult to explain what it means for the people it should benefit. Or in an engineering study, a project evaluation, a medical protocol or a new procedure within a company.

All these fields produce valuable knowledge and all run the risk of ending up talking to them.

I have seen this many times in development projects. Time and resources are invested in generating evidence, studies, evaluations, systematizations and lessons learned. And that knowledge, instead of circulating, can end up saved in a report that very few open, written in the language of the person who produced it and not necessarily in that of the one who would have to use it to make a decision.

There is, for me, the bottom of the matter. Knowledge is not always lacking. Sometimes knowledge exists, but it is not reaching those who need it because they are trapped in their own vocabulary.

Each profession and each organization develops concepts, procedures and ways of speaking that are familiar to those who work inside. That technical language is necessary. This way you can be more precise and the conversation between specialists is easier. The problem arises when we use the same language for all audiences.

Translating it does not mean that all its depth has to be removed until it is completely unrecognizable. Care must be taken with overly simplified explanations, which sometimes make important nuances be lost, exaggerated conclusions are drawn and even the meanings of the information are changed. The thing is that you have to keep the bottom and change the way you explain it according to who needs it and for what.

A municipal authority probably does not need to know all the methodological details of an investigation to decide where to concentrate resources. A journalist needs to understand the findings, but also their limitations. A community needs to know what certain information means to its reality. A client wants to understand what he is hiring and under what conditions. An employee needs to know what changes in a procedure and how it affects him. A technical team, on the other hand, may need the data, methodology and details of the process. The knowledge of origin can be the same. The way to communicate it doesn't have to be.

In the end, a communication can be technically well constructed, use the correct terms and contain rigorous information, but if the audience to which it is addressed does not understand it, something is wrong. Clarity should not be measured by who emits the message, but by who needs to understand it.

And there is still something else at stake: silence is not an alternative either. When those who have the knowledge do not explain, or do so in a way that very few can understand, the space is left open for someone else to do it. And that person may not have the necessary knowledge, context or rigor. A simple explanation, even if it is incorrect, can circulate much faster than a technically impeccable document that no one understands.

There we find part of the ground where hoaxes, misinterpretations and misinformation grow. Not because all misinformation is born from poor communication, of course, but because information gaps and incomprehensible explanations make it easier for other versions to occupy that space.

That's why translating technical knowledge doesn't mean simplifying for simplifying. It means keeping rigor and finding a way to communicate it that makes sense for the audience we want to reach.

That's what I do in my job: I try to make people understand what they know. Knowledge is much more valuable when it can move, be understood and help people ask questions, decide or act with better information.