Author: Michelle Boulton, managing editor, CRPA Bulletin
In Part I of this series, we defined risk and risk communication, discussed the need to consider the perspectives of your audience, and explored some of the barriers to effective risk communication. In Part II, we talked about some of the ways plain language can make your risk communication easier to understand and more effective. In Part III, we are exploring the importance of providing context (additional information) to help readers understand the meaning behind the information so they can put risk into perspective.
In Part II of the Risk Communication for Radiation Safety Professionals series, we begin to explore how plain language can make your risk communication easier to understand and more effective.
There is a broad range of professions that routinely interact with ionizing radiation, which means the work of radiation safety professionals is also wide ranging. Regardless of what industry you work in, the one constant is the need to protect workers and to help them understand and respects the risks when they are exposed to radiation.
Communicating technical information to a non-technical audience without compromising intent or accuracy can be challenging.
The Let’s Be Clear series provides practical advice to help Bulletin readers write with more confidence. In this article, we’re talking about our built-in negativity bias and suggesting some ways to overcome it in writing.
In this article, we’ll explore the communication process and your role in that process as a writer.
In his November 2019 President’s Message, Ed Waller said radiation safety professionals “are good at understanding the technical side of radiation exposure, statistics, and uncertainty, but . . . are often not good at translating these important technical concepts into readily digestible (yet accurate) explanations for the non-technical expert.”
