that you didn't actually read?

你可曾在對話當中引述一篇研究，

(Laughter)

但你其實沒讀過那篇研究？

I was having coffee with a friend of mine the other day,

（笑聲）

and I said, "You know, I read a new study

有天，我和一位朋友在喝咖啡，

that says coffee reduces the risk of depression in women."

我說：「你知道嗎， 我讀到一篇新研究，

But really, what I read was a tweet.

它說咖啡會降低女性 得到憂鬱症的風險。」

(Laughter)

但其實，我讀的是一則推特訊息。

That said --

（笑聲）

(Laughter)

上面說──

"A new study says drinking coffee may decrease depression risk in women."

（笑聲）

(Laughter)

「一篇新研究指出，喝咖啡會 降低女性得到憂鬱症的風險。」

And that tweet had a link to the "New York Times" blog,

（笑聲）

where a guest blogger translated the study findings

該推特訊息有附一個連結， 連到《紐約時報》部落格，

from a "Live Science" article,

該部落格上有位客座部落客 翻譯了研究發現，

which got its original information

內容是來自《趣味科學網》的文章，

from the Harvard School of Public Health news site,

該文章的資訊來源

which cited the actual study abstract,

是哈佛公共衛生學院的新聞網站，

which summarized the actual study published in an academic journal.

該網站引用了那篇研究的摘要，

(Laughter)

該摘要是將實際在學術期刊上 刊出的那份研究做了總整。

It's like the six degrees of separation,

（笑聲）

but with research.

這就像是六度分離，

(Laughter)

只是換成研究。

So, when I said I read a study,

（笑聲）

what I actually read was 59 characters that summarized 10 years of research.

所以，當我說我讀到一篇研究，

(Laughter)

我的意思其實是，我讀到了將 十年研究總整出來的 59 個字母。

So, when I said I read a study,

（笑聲）

I was reading fractions of the study

所以，當我說我讀到一篇研究，

that were put together by four different writers

我讀到的只是該研究的一小部分，

that were not the author,

由四名不同的寫手拼湊起來，

before it got to me.

他們都不是該研究的作者，

That doesn't seem right.

然後被我讀到。

But accessing original research is difficult,

那似乎不太對。

because academics aren't regularly engaging with popular media.

但，要評估原始的研究是很困難的，

And you might be asking yourself,

因為學術人士通常 不和大眾媒體連結。

why aren't academics engaging with popular media?

你可能會自問，

It seems like they'd be a more legitimate source of information

為什麼學術人士不與大眾媒體連結？

than the media pundits.

他們的資訊來源似乎比較可靠，

Right?

比媒體專家來的更可靠。

(Laughter)

對吧？

In a country with over 4,100 colleges and universities,

（笑聲）

it feels like this should be the norm.

在一個有 4100 間大專院校的國家，

But it's not.

感覺這應該是常態才對。

So, how did we get here?

但卻不是。

To understand why scholars aren't engaging with popular media,

怎麼會變這樣？

you first have to understand how universities work.

要了解為什麼學者 不和大眾媒體連結，

Now, in the last six years,

需要先了解大學怎麼運作。

I've taught at seven different colleges and universities

在過去六年間，

in four different states.

我在七間不同的大專院校教書，

I'm a bit of an adjunct extraordinaire.

在四個不同的州。

(Laughter)

我也算添加了不尋常。

And at the same time, I'm pursuing my PhD.

（笑聲）

In all of these different institutions,

同時，我也在攻讀博士學位。

the research and publication process works the same way.

在所有這些不同的機構中，

First, scholars produce research in their fields.

研究和出版的過程 以同樣的方式運作。

To fund their research, they apply for public and private grants

首先，學者要產出自己領域的研究。

and after the research is finished,

為了替研究找資金，他們要 申請公家和私人的補助金，

they write a paper about their findings.

在研究完成之後，

Then they submit that paper to relevant academic journals.

他們要針對他們的發現寫一篇論文。

Then it goes through a process called peer review,

然後他們會把那篇論文 投稿到相關的學術期刊。

which essentially means that other experts

投稿論文要經過同儕評審的過程，

are checking it for accuracy and credibility.

基本上，這就表示其他專家

And then, once it's published,

要確認該論文的正確性和可靠性。

for-profit companies resell that information

接著，一旦論文刊出之後，

back to universities and public libraries

營利公司會轉售該資訊，

through journal and database subscriptions.

透過期刊和訂閱資料庫的方式

So, that's the system.

將資訊賣回給大學和公立圖書館。

Research, write, peer-review, publish, repeat.

系統就是這樣運作的。

My friends and I call it feeding the monster.

研究、撰寫、 同儕評審、刊出、重覆。

And you can see how this might create some problems.

我和我朋友稱之為餵食怪獸。

The first problem is that most academic research is publicly funded

你們可以看出這方式 可能會造成一些問題。

but privately distributed.

第一個問題是，大部分的 學術研究都是由公家資助，

Every year, the federal government spends 60 billion dollars on research.

卻由私人販售。

According to the National Science Foundation,

聯邦政府每年花費 600 億美元在研究上。

29 percent of that goes to public research universities.

根據國家科學基金會，

So, if you're quick at math, that's 17.4 billion dollars.

那些錢有 29% 流入公立研究大學。

Tax dollars.

所以，如果你數學算很快， 那就是 174 億美元。

And just five corporations are responsible

這是納稅人的錢。

for distributing most publicly funded research.

但只有五間公司負責

In 2014, just one of those companies made 1.5 billion dollars in profit.

發行大部分公家資助的研究。

It's a big business.

2014 年，光是其中一間公司 就賺了 15 億美元的利潤。

And I bet you can see the irony here.

這是個大事業。

If the public is funding academics' research,

我打賭你們能看出這裡的諷刺之處。

but then we have to pay again to access the results,

如果公家在資助學術人士的研究，

it's like we're paying for it twice.

但我們卻要再付錢 才能取得研究結果，

And the other major problem

好像我們為此付了兩次錢。

is that most academics don't have a whole lot of incentive

還有另一個大問題，

to publish outside of these prestigious subscription-based journals.

大部分的學術人士並沒有很大的動機

Universities build their tenure and promotion systems

把論文刊登在這些訂閱式 知名期刊以外的地方。

around the number of times scholars publish.

大學中的終身職和升職體制，

So, books and journal articles are kind of like a form of currency for scholars.

是以學者刊出的數目為依據。

Publishing articles helps you get tenure and more research grants down the road.

所以，書籍和期刊 就像是學者的一種貨幣。

But academics are not rewarded for publishing with popular media.

出版文章能協助你取得終身職 以及更多的研究獎助金。

So, this is the status quo.

但若在大眾媒體刊出， 學術人士是無法得到獎賞的。

The current academic ecosystem.

這就是現況，

But I don't think it has to be this way.

目前的學術生態系統。

We can make some simple changes to flip the script.

但我不認為它一定得這樣。

So, first, let's start by discussing access.

我們能做些簡單的改變來反轉現狀。

Universities can begin to challenge the status quo

首先，我們先來談談取得。

by rewarding scholars for publishing

大學挑戰現況的一個做法是

not just in these subscription-based journals

獎勵學者出版，

but in open-access journals as well as on popular media.

不僅限於訂閱式的期刊，

Now, the open-access movement is starting to make some progress

也包括開放取得的期刊和大眾媒體。

in many disciplines,

目前有許多學科在開放取用上 已開始有些進展。

and fortunately, some other big players have started to notice.

幸運的是，其他一些大玩家 也開始注意到此事。

Google Scholar has made open-access research

「Google 學術搜尋」 已讓開放取用的研究

searchable and easier to find.

很容易能被搜尋到。

Congress, last year, introduced a bill

去年，國會推出一項議案，

that suggests that academic research projects

建議學術研究計畫如果有

with over 100 million or more in funding

超過一億美元以上的資金，

should develop an open-access policy.

應該要建立開放取用的政策。

And this year, NASA opened up its entire research library to the public.

今年，太空總署把它的整個 研究圖書館開放給大眾。

So, you can see this idea is beginning to catch on.

這個想法已經開始流行。

But access isn't just about being able

但取用並不只是要能夠

to get your hands on a document or a study.

拿到一份文件或是研究。

It's also about making sure

它的重點在於要確保

that that document or study is easily understood.

那份文件或研究能很容易理解。

So, let's talk about translation.

所以，咱們來談談轉譯。

I don't envision this translation to look like the six degrees of separation

我並不會把轉譯想像成

that I illustrated earlier.

我先前描述的六度分離。

Instead, what if scholars were able to take the research that they're doing

反之，如果學者能夠轉譯他們的研究

and translate it on popular media

並公開在大眾媒體上，

and be able to engage with the public?

與大眾能有所連結，那會如何？

If scholars did this,

如果學者這麼做，

the degrees of separation between the public and research

民眾和學術研究之間的距離

would shrink by a lot.

就會縮短很多。

So, you see, I'm not suggesting a dumbing-down of the research.

但我並不是在建議 每分研究都要通俗易懂。

I'm just suggesting that we give the public access to that research

我只是建議我們 要讓民眾能夠輕易取得研究，

and that we shift the venue and focus on using plain language

並聚焦在使用平易近人的語言，

so that the public who's paying for the research

這麼一來，真正在為研究付錢的大眾

can also consume it.

也能讀懂這些研究。

And there are some other benefits to this approach.

這樣做還有其它好處。

By showing the public how their tax dollars

讓大眾知道他們納的稅

are being used to fund research,

如何被用來資助研究，

they can begin to redefine universities' identities

就能開始重新定義大學存在的意義，

so that universities' identities are not just based on a football team

不是根據它們的足球隊

or the degrees they grant

或授予的學位來定義，

but on the research that's being produced there.

而是根據它們所發佈的研究來定義。

And when there's a healthy relationship between the public and scholars,

當大眾和學術之間有良好的互動，

it encourages public participation in research.

就能鼓勵大眾參與研究。

Can you imagine what that might look like?

你們能想像那會是什麼樣子嗎？

What if social scientists

如果社會科學家

helped local police redesign their sensitivity trainings

能夠協助當地的警察 重新設計他們的敏感度訓練，

and then collaboratively wrote a manual to model future trainings?

然後合作撰寫一份手冊 供未來訓練參考，那會如何？

Or what if our education professors consulted with our local public schools

或者，如果我們的教育專家 和當地的公立學校合作，

to decide how we're going to intervene with our at-risk students

擬定要如何介入處理問題學生，

and then wrote about it in a local newspaper?

然後在當地的報紙上 發佈相關文章，那會如何？

Because a functioning democracy

因為一個運作良好的民主機制

requires that the public be well-educated and well-informed.

需要大眾受到良好的 教育並能理解資訊。

Instead of research happening behind paywalls and bureaucracy,

而不是讓研究被私人機構 或官僚政治拿來賺錢用，

wouldn't it be better if it was unfolding right in front of us?

把它攤開在我們面前， 不是比較好嗎？

Now, as a PhD student,

身為博士生，

I realize I'm critiquing the club I want to join.

我知道我是在批評 我想要加入的俱樂部。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Which is a dangerous thing to do,

做這種事還蠻危險的，

since I'm going to be on the academic job market in a couple of years.

因為幾年之後我就會 在學術工作市場上了。

But if the status quo in academic research

但，如果學術界的現況

is to publish in the echo chambers of for-profit journals

是以發佈期刊營利為目的，

that never reach the public,

刊在永遠到不了大眾的期刊上，

you better believe my answer is going to be "nope."

你最好相信，我的答案會是「不」。

I believe in inclusive, democratic research

我相信包容性的民主研究，

that works in the community and talks with the public.

能在社區內起作用，能和民眾對話。

I want to work in research and in an academic culture

我希望我所從事的學術界文化

where the public is not only seen as a valuable audience,

不僅能把民眾視為有價值的觀眾，

but a constituent, a participant.

更能把他們視為一份子、參與者。

And in some cases even the expert.

甚至在某些情況下視他們為專家。

And this isn't just about

重點並不是

giving you guys access to information.

給予大家取得資訊的途徑。

It's about shifting academic culture from publishing to practice

重點是轉變學術文化， 從出版轉變到實做，

and from talking to doing.

從「說」轉變到「做」。

And you should know that this idea, this hope --

你們應該知道，這想法、這希望

it doesn't just belong to me.

不只屬於我。

I'm standing on the shoulders of many scholars, teachers,

我正站在許多人的肩膀上， 包括學者、老師、

librarians and community members

圖書館圓，和社區成員，

who also advocate for including more people in the conversation.

他們也主張讓更多人參與對話。

I hope you join our conversation, too.

我希望各位也能參與我們的對話。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）