On 2014 Sep 02, Hilda Bastian commented:

An excellent overview of the need for studying humor in science communication, and the academic challenges in it. While there’s some more evidence than that gathered here, I think Hauke Riesch’s conclusions about the uncertainties of benefit and harm are spot on.

I found the review on studies of humor in teaching he points to (Banas, 2011) helpful as well. From children through to continuing education and the communication of science among peers (Rockwood K, 2004), there’s a lot to learn here.

In describing the varying results of studies, Riesch doesn’t explicitly address a key confounder in communication research: the quality of the intervention. It’s hard to make sense of bodies of evidence in this field without quality assessments and being able to see the interventions (Glasziou P, 2010). Skill in using humor may account for some of the heterogeneity. And learning about the skills necessary for effectiveness – and how to acquire them – are key issues in this field, too.

Riesch addresses well the potentially alienating and stereotyping effect of science humor, as well as the potential benefits of social group cohesion. In addition, though, satire in peer-to-peer communication and for policy-related issues is also a critical element of humor in science communication, as it is in other areas of community life (Zyglis, 2003).

I welcome the author’s desire to “open a discussion” on humor in science communication. But this article being behind a paywall isn’t going to help that process. It would be great to know if the author is engaging with discussion in any other forum.

I’ve blogged about the science of humor, and humor in science, in response to this article at Scientific American.

On 2014 Sep 02, Hilda Bastian commented:

An excellent overview of the need for studying humor in science communication, and the academic challenges in it. While there’s some more evidence than that gathered here, I think Hauke Riesch’s conclusions about the uncertainties of benefit and harm are spot on.

I found the review on studies of humor in teaching he points to (Banas, 2011) helpful as well. From children through to continuing education and the communication of science among peers (Rockwood K, 2004), there’s a lot to learn here.

In describing the varying results of studies, Riesch doesn’t explicitly address a key confounder in communication research: the quality of the intervention. It’s hard to make sense of bodies of evidence in this field without quality assessments and being able to see the interventions (Glasziou P, 2010). Skill in using humor may account for some of the heterogeneity. And learning about the skills necessary for effectiveness – and how to acquire them – are key issues in this field, too.

Riesch addresses well the potentially alienating and stereotyping effect of science humor, as well as the potential benefits of social group cohesion. In addition, though, satire in peer-to-peer communication and for policy-related issues is also a critical element of humor in science communication, as it is in other areas of community life (Zyglis, 2003).

I welcome the author’s desire to “open a discussion” on humor in science communication. But this article being behind a paywall isn’t going to help that process. It would be great to know if the author is engaging with discussion in any other forum.

I’ve blogged about the science of humor, and humor in science, in response to this article at Scientific American.